In the last couple weeks, Herman Cain has risen more than 10 points in national polls asking potential GOP voters who they would nominate in 2012.
Almost as many points as he has won, Rick Perry has lost. This has put Cain in a tie or even a slight lead over the Texas governor.
But what does all this mean?
I said Perry would not last in the race, having arrived with the fanfare he did. This is for a few simple reasons.
1. He has a history with the Democratic Party.
This is a huge point. Americans are sick of "politicians" in the sense of elected officials who change their views as quickly as the wind changes direction.
2. He has never run for election outside of his state.
The campaign for presidency is much more difficult than a state election. There are much larger issues to consider with wider audiences, which mean you have to watch what you say. Perry has admitted multiple times in debates that he hasn't formulated plans on issues such as fixing the tax code or health care reform.
Added into this is Perry's history of leading with a heavy hand and intimidation. There have been a lot of reports from former employees that say he wasn't the most cooperative executive in Texas.
3. People expected too much from him.
If there is one thing I have learned about the GOP electorate from this election cycle and the one in 2008 is that candidates should fear fanfare upon entering the race. Fred Thompson was greeted with huge enthusiasm and his campaign imploded in a few months. The same is happening with Perry. The GOP is in searching so hard to find "the next Reagan" that the favored candidate is expected to be at that level. The strange thing is, no one in the race is a Reagan - they are either more moderate or more conservative. Thus Republicans are left grasping at smoke as they cannot find their prophet.
But enough about Perry, this article is about Herman Cain.
I think Cain is going to experience similar problems as Perry - what I will dub the "Reagan Effect." Let's look at why people are starting to like him.
1. Cain has answers.
Cain's "9-9-9" plan has been the scrutiny of recent debates, interviews, and news articles. There hasn't even been serious deep consideration for the plan, Cain has just explained time and again what the plan is; and people are eating it up. They care less about what the plan is and more that there is a plan.
2. Cain eliminates the race issue.
This has been an issue for Republicans since the 60s. When looking at how African Americans vote, the numbers are overwhelming in favor of the Democratic party to the tune of 95%. This week Cain said he could get 33% of the black vote and he's likely right.
African Americans have strong socially conservative values and perhaps more importantly, they have shown disfavor towards Obama. In a recent poll, only 55% of blacks approved of Obama's job as president.
On a head to head debate, Obama's advantage being a minority is lost.
3. Cain is a businessman.
A common thread in our political atmosphere today is a dissatisfaction of the establishment. Herman Cain offers a perspective almost exclusively from the private sector. The public has perceived Cain is above the taint of Washington, which puts him in a favorable light.
So what will cause Cain's campaign to implode?
1. He isn't an experienced politician.
While being a businessman is a positive for him, it will ultimately be his undoing. His lack of experience in the political realm will only become more obvious as we go along. This is particularly true because the presidential race is the most difficult campaign in American politics.
2. He is a policy lightweight.
I find it surprising how many people have forgotten how little knowledge Cain has on foreign policy issues. Let me give you three examples. In May, he didn't know what the Palestinian Right of Return was, in July he thought the U.S. recognized Taiwan as a legitimate and independent government, and two days ago he bashed the idea of knowing the president of a made up country that sounds awfully familiar to Uzbekistan.
This would be less of an issue if we didn't have multiple foreign conflicts going on and tense relations with half the world - but we do.
3. Money could be an issue.
We know Cain raised just under $2.5 million dollars in the second quarter this year. For people who need a reference to that, Mitt Romney raised $18.25 million, Ron Paul raised $4.5 million, and Tim Pawlenty raised $4.2 million.
Cain has yet to release his third quarter totals, and we can expect them to be higher since he has risen in the polls, but I doubt he will have enough to compete with Romney.
All I ask is this: let's stop the Cain train before it can start gaining momentum. The man is not fit for the job and even in the unlikely event that he does beat out Obama, he will not change our policies in any noticeable way.
If you are sick of the status quo - as I know many of you are - check our Ron Paul. Agree or disagree with him, at least he's different.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Steve Jobs: A Legacy
The passing of Steve Jobs yesterday is a loss for the world. His innovation, vision, and love for what he did helped bring us into the modern digital age. Without a doubt, our culture's radical technological advances have been direct results of the work by Jobs and others, such as Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, and Larry Page.
Though Jobs is no longer with us, by no means is his work finished. There is so much we as Americans can learn from Jobs' life. Here are some quotes and defining parts of Jobs' life.
"You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."
As far innovators in the technological realm go, few can better Jobs. He did not rely on focus groups or market research. He analyzed a product, searched for its flaws, and corrected them. This meant Jobs innovated products that had people amazed because they were radically different from what they were used to.
Jobs did not invent digital music, nor did he invent the tablet. But he designed the iPod to be so user-friendly that Apple now has dominance in the music player market, and the iPad brought tablet computers to the forefront of new computer hardware.
Inherent with Jobs business model is extreme risk. Because he didn't have the assurances of market research, he was not guaranteed success of his products. This speaks to the genius of Jobs. His ability to anticipate what people would demand made him a leader in technological advancements.
"Quality is better than quantity. One home-run is better than two doubles."
Jobs strive for excellence marks him as a great person. Success is often an uphill journey. As Jobs himself said "I'm convinced that about half of what separates successful entrepreneurs from the non-successful ones is pure perseverance."
What made Jobs such a huge success was not the Apple II - his breakout computer in the 1980s. It wasn't even his first job as Apple's CEO. He was fired from Apple in the mid-nineties. His success was finally earned when Apple rehired him as CEO. From that time he developed the aforementioned iPod and iPad as well as revive the stagnant company to become competitive with then super-giant of the computer market, Microsoft.
We need to take this lesson and apply it to ourselves. Our lives happen over many years marked with many accomplishments. If you quit after one mishap you will never find success.
"Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap that you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart."
Jobs was worth over $10,000,000 by the time he was 25 and he couldn't care less. For him the money didn't matter. He loved to innovate and problem solve. Later in his life he loved to push people to excellence - part of why he was a great CEO.
This may sound cliché, but doing what you love is going to make you the happiest. There are many ways to make money. You could become a lawyer or doctor, you could invent the next Snuggie, or you could write the next best-seller.
However the "what" in life is not important. It is the "why." If you do one of these things just to make money, you will find disappointment. If you love to draw but make no money, I can almost guarantee that you will be happy, because you are created to fulfill your individual purpose.
If there is one thing Jobs' life can show us, it is just this. Making computers was far from profitable when he started doing it. Even when he created his first piece of functioning hardware, no one would buy it. But he saw that people would take hold of what he could innovate and he persevered until he found success, not because he wanted the money, but because this is what he loved to do. So find what you love and work at it - if you love it, it won't really seem like work.
I leave you with this final quote.
"Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes...the ones who see things differently - they're not fond of rules. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things...they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do."
Though Jobs is no longer with us, by no means is his work finished. There is so much we as Americans can learn from Jobs' life. Here are some quotes and defining parts of Jobs' life.
"You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."
As far innovators in the technological realm go, few can better Jobs. He did not rely on focus groups or market research. He analyzed a product, searched for its flaws, and corrected them. This meant Jobs innovated products that had people amazed because they were radically different from what they were used to.
Jobs did not invent digital music, nor did he invent the tablet. But he designed the iPod to be so user-friendly that Apple now has dominance in the music player market, and the iPad brought tablet computers to the forefront of new computer hardware.
Inherent with Jobs business model is extreme risk. Because he didn't have the assurances of market research, he was not guaranteed success of his products. This speaks to the genius of Jobs. His ability to anticipate what people would demand made him a leader in technological advancements.
"Quality is better than quantity. One home-run is better than two doubles."
Jobs strive for excellence marks him as a great person. Success is often an uphill journey. As Jobs himself said "I'm convinced that about half of what separates successful entrepreneurs from the non-successful ones is pure perseverance."
What made Jobs such a huge success was not the Apple II - his breakout computer in the 1980s. It wasn't even his first job as Apple's CEO. He was fired from Apple in the mid-nineties. His success was finally earned when Apple rehired him as CEO. From that time he developed the aforementioned iPod and iPad as well as revive the stagnant company to become competitive with then super-giant of the computer market, Microsoft.
We need to take this lesson and apply it to ourselves. Our lives happen over many years marked with many accomplishments. If you quit after one mishap you will never find success.
"Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap that you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart."
Jobs was worth over $10,000,000 by the time he was 25 and he couldn't care less. For him the money didn't matter. He loved to innovate and problem solve. Later in his life he loved to push people to excellence - part of why he was a great CEO.
This may sound cliché, but doing what you love is going to make you the happiest. There are many ways to make money. You could become a lawyer or doctor, you could invent the next Snuggie, or you could write the next best-seller.
However the "what" in life is not important. It is the "why." If you do one of these things just to make money, you will find disappointment. If you love to draw but make no money, I can almost guarantee that you will be happy, because you are created to fulfill your individual purpose.
If there is one thing Jobs' life can show us, it is just this. Making computers was far from profitable when he started doing it. Even when he created his first piece of functioning hardware, no one would buy it. But he saw that people would take hold of what he could innovate and he persevered until he found success, not because he wanted the money, but because this is what he loved to do. So find what you love and work at it - if you love it, it won't really seem like work.
I leave you with this final quote.
"Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes...the ones who see things differently - they're not fond of rules. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things...they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do."
Predator Drones Killing Awlaki: Right or Wrong?
Last week Anwar Al Awlaki was killed by a strike from a predator drone. There has been a little discussion on the matter, but I feel the media has not expressed deeply enough the two main concerns this event has brought up.
The first area of concern is the morality of using drones for killing. Dissenters argue that this is inhumane. If a war is going to occur it ought to be man on man. By allowing machines to do the killing for us remotely is dehumanizing the process of war.
While this seems like a weak argument, it is rather difficult to dismiss. I could bring up a historical argument that we have been using machines to wage war since Cain struck Abel with a rock. The only difference is that technology is more sophisticated.
However this does not negate the first argument as the dissenter could respond that even using a rock is dehumanizing.
So this is my argument. War is itself dehumanizing. No matter which way you slice it, when the natural rights of an individual are infringed by another the nature of humanity is deformed. For this reason, we should be very cautious to enter war. In the last half-century, America has entered so many wars that her populace feels war is perpetual and a given in society. This is a travesty that the youth in the 1960s and now today have hoped to end.
The second and perhaps more immediately important concern is that President Obama ordered the killing of an American with this strike.
This is a confusing area. After all, Awlaki was an "enemy combatant" and we have killed enemy combatants nearly every day for the last eight years. Why should this be any different?
The first glaring issue is that Awlaki was an American citizen. That means he is entitled to the Constitutional rights of habeas corpus, or his right to a trial. There is plenty of evidence to suggest Awlaki was a planner in multiple acts of terror in recent years, so I am confident that he would be found guilty in a court of law.
What surprises me also is this: Awlaki could have had his citizenship revoked on the grounds of treason. That is a constitutional power we have given our government. So again I have to ask, why was this not done?
I truly have no answer to this and all I can offer is vapid speculation.
What my concern with this action is how it sets up a dangerous precedent. Looking at this from a purely legal standpoint, it could be apt to describe the killing of Awlaki as a presidential assassination of an American citizen. If we allow this to happen unquestioned my fear is that in the future a president can turn this power domestically.
Let us think of a hypothetical situation in which a man or group is strongly opposed to a policy of a future president. The president, wanting to silence dissention to said policy, labels this group or individual as a combatant to America and has them ordered to be assassinated. There is no trial for these people nor an attempt to arrest them.
Do you think this is right?
I don't think president Obama will ever come close to performing such an act as was presented but I fear that if the growing power of the executive branch continues to grow unchecked situations similar to this may be quite likely in the future.
Agree or disagree with me on this specific circumstance, this is my challenge: look at what our federal government is doing and always question their actions. Our government is a government of the people. That means the people need to take an active role in it. I am tired of people being disillusioned to government. If we held our elected official's feet to the fire we might find that the policies they legislate more closely match our own ideals.
We have not yet reached the point where the populace is beyond controlling the government. We must act swiftly and with intelligence to turn our nation around and set us back on the road to success.
The first area of concern is the morality of using drones for killing. Dissenters argue that this is inhumane. If a war is going to occur it ought to be man on man. By allowing machines to do the killing for us remotely is dehumanizing the process of war.
While this seems like a weak argument, it is rather difficult to dismiss. I could bring up a historical argument that we have been using machines to wage war since Cain struck Abel with a rock. The only difference is that technology is more sophisticated.
However this does not negate the first argument as the dissenter could respond that even using a rock is dehumanizing.
So this is my argument. War is itself dehumanizing. No matter which way you slice it, when the natural rights of an individual are infringed by another the nature of humanity is deformed. For this reason, we should be very cautious to enter war. In the last half-century, America has entered so many wars that her populace feels war is perpetual and a given in society. This is a travesty that the youth in the 1960s and now today have hoped to end.
The second and perhaps more immediately important concern is that President Obama ordered the killing of an American with this strike.
This is a confusing area. After all, Awlaki was an "enemy combatant" and we have killed enemy combatants nearly every day for the last eight years. Why should this be any different?
The first glaring issue is that Awlaki was an American citizen. That means he is entitled to the Constitutional rights of habeas corpus, or his right to a trial. There is plenty of evidence to suggest Awlaki was a planner in multiple acts of terror in recent years, so I am confident that he would be found guilty in a court of law.
What surprises me also is this: Awlaki could have had his citizenship revoked on the grounds of treason. That is a constitutional power we have given our government. So again I have to ask, why was this not done?
I truly have no answer to this and all I can offer is vapid speculation.
What my concern with this action is how it sets up a dangerous precedent. Looking at this from a purely legal standpoint, it could be apt to describe the killing of Awlaki as a presidential assassination of an American citizen. If we allow this to happen unquestioned my fear is that in the future a president can turn this power domestically.
Let us think of a hypothetical situation in which a man or group is strongly opposed to a policy of a future president. The president, wanting to silence dissention to said policy, labels this group or individual as a combatant to America and has them ordered to be assassinated. There is no trial for these people nor an attempt to arrest them.
Do you think this is right?
I don't think president Obama will ever come close to performing such an act as was presented but I fear that if the growing power of the executive branch continues to grow unchecked situations similar to this may be quite likely in the future.
Agree or disagree with me on this specific circumstance, this is my challenge: look at what our federal government is doing and always question their actions. Our government is a government of the people. That means the people need to take an active role in it. I am tired of people being disillusioned to government. If we held our elected official's feet to the fire we might find that the policies they legislate more closely match our own ideals.
We have not yet reached the point where the populace is beyond controlling the government. We must act swiftly and with intelligence to turn our nation around and set us back on the road to success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)