Ron Paul Rules the waves!!

I did a bit of research on Ron Paul after being so impressed by him, watching the you tube clips of the Michigan Republican Debate which featured all the current Republican candidates.
Ron Paul seems to be the darling of the internet masses. "Ron Paul" is the second most searched Technorati term after "You Tube"!. At the last incomplete list by a blogger there are an amazing ~70 blogs dedicated to Ron Paul! There's even an "Indian and Pakistani Friends of Ron Paul" Blog!
Incomplete list of Ron Paul Blogs
Most supporters of Ron Paul are democrats who plan to vote republican for Ron during the primaries, like this guy here, in whose post, I was amazed to find, the idea of why to support Ron, practically is the same as mine...
A Republican blog banned users from discussing Ron Paul because he attracted an unusual number of supporters. That's pretty obvious isn't it? Considering the the average Republican supporter who doesn't support Ron couldn't possibly know to read or write coherently much less use the web. And the redstate blog's spokesman commented thus -

"These people are not part of the Republican coalition. It's somewhat naive to think that these people will stay in the race with Republicans when Ron Paul is no longer in the race," said Erickson.

While that may not be all that true today, its obvious that the more literate of the Republican supporters are more libertarian and less republican. As the republican party increasing gets a bad rap as a party that doesn't respect fiscal responsibility especially after the excesses of the current Bush government, more and more libertarains are either going to support the democratic party or work toward strengthening the Libertarian party. And as more and more libertarians move out, the republican party gets even more of a rap as a party of illiterates and fundamentalists. Hmm.. sounds like a dream come true :)

The Clinton administration has proved that the Democrats are more than capable of fiscal responsibility and they aren't so much of a left-leaning party economically as they are liberal.

With more and more innuendo piling up that Ron Paul isn't a republican after all, I assume the people who stick to the republican party because of its fiscal policies and are heavily invested in knowing their politics and their candidates are going to feel more and more alienated about their ideology being given the short shrift. While Guiliani and Romney make a decent attempt at being classic republicans, voters with the kind of heavy investment described will still feel slighted. Once upon a time, in pre-tech revolution times, the Republicans were the party that was the conscience of the liberal and literate. Today it has become a disgusting mish-mash of military-industrial-religion complex that considers its "core" to be that of barely literate christian conservatives, who wanted decent pious lives but who've been mauled and manipulated into bible-thumping, shotgun wielding religious maniacs who bomb doctors, lustfully cry for state sponsored killing and for good measure bay for the blood of "godless" arab-looking people by the likes of nuts, nincompoops and plain idiots like Pat Robertson and Bush. This sad de-facto feudal enterprise is fueled by money from cynical manipulators who abuse the good offices of capitalism, like Bechtel, Blackwater, Halliburton and the slimy like. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long, heavy slide for the Republicans.

Now, the problem is there would then need to be a credible alternative to the Democrats... Time for a multi-party party of The Green Party, The Libertarian party and the Democratic Party perhaps? he he....

Ron Paul for Prez!!! Ron Paul for Indian PM!!!

With all due respect to my opinions as on date when I wrote my first post on the Michigan Republican debate , I have made a startling discovery.

If I were American, I have actually found myself a Republican I can vote for and be at peace with my supposed liberal ass self. And that Republican is one I would vote for over the current crop of Democrats... anyday.

I think all Democrats who believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, in liberalism, in libertarianism, in the first amendment, in social security, in putting people above business... rather than in the supposed leading lights like Obama and Clinton should vote for this man. This man stands for all those values far better than any current Democrat leader does. And he does so emphatically.

Four years with him at the helm would change the United States back into one of the most respected nations in the world from the currently rather discomfiting ... most hated.

The man is Ron Paul, Senator from Texas. Yes... TEXAS! A republican from Texas... mother of bloody God... how could that be possible. But yes. It happens. Intelligence, insight and moral superiority shine from wherever. Even from bang in the middle of the center of the religio-industrial-politico complex of cowboy land texas. And even from something as morally degrading as the republican party that uses a "values debate" (values as defined by fundamentalist, obscurantist, morally repugnant and simply stupid interpretations of the new testament) to decide on its candidate.

This silver haired, slight, craggy-faced man is emancipation for American politics. He goes back to the turn of the 20th century Republican morals. When Republican actually stood for the literal meaning of the word "republican" and not the christian fundamentalist organisation that masquerades as a political party today.

This man stands up for personal liberty. In an universe where wussy-democrats who are in majority in the senate still agree to increase discretionary powers to pry into privacy, this man dares to support personal liberty and privacy in the debating platform where pleasing all is a must.

This man stands up for a "when blame needs to be laid, lay it first on yourself" principle to foreign policy when tank-nozzles and f-22 noses are phallic symbols of american pride to "bring democracy wherever oil is" the game of the day. He insists that America set its home right before it preaches to others. !!!.. This man is a Republican. I wouldn't dare say that even in the middle of a bunch of californian academicians. American moral supremacy is something taken for granted by even the most liberal, libertarian person in the USA, except perhaps for Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky!

This personal actually believes and states publicly that all is not hunky-dory with Domestic Policy as executed by the current Government.

I can live with his public stances on core conservative issues- abortion, homosexual rights, christianity and immigration. No one with such emphasis on personal liberty and accountability could go too far right. I do believe that he will straddle the fence and back-burnerise on these core conservative issues, whenever they impinge on liberty. I can live with that. I do believe liberalism and libertarianism can be slowed but never stopped or reversed.

I cry that we can't find someone with his mind in Indian Politics. Americans will never find another like him for the rest of their history. And they will never know it either. He will never get past the primaries, and will only have a select few fans who appreciate what could've been if Ron Paul....

I wonder if six-degrees of separation is too wide to let him know that one of his biggest fans is on the opposite side of the planet and the other side of the universe where political ideology is concerned.

Why does Nancy Kress need just 40 pages to destroy Ayn Rand?

Beggars in Spain Book1 is all of 36 pages. 36 pages of unassuming science fiction literature.
Did Nancy Kress have a political stand? Does Beggars in Spain have a political agenda. No. It most certainly doesn't. Its starts out as a one of the three main types of science fiction. That which revolves around a singular invention/innovation/discovery that has intended/unintended consequences to a human/ alien or human/alien society and therein lies the story.
Does she have a long complex plot, a compelling hero, character building for innumerable characters, clear, dirty eminently hate-able villains or a clearly made out contemptible society?
Um... No, no, no, no and no.

But in 36 unpretentious pages, Nancy Kress effectively destroys any and all argument that Ayn Rand builds over two best selling books, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, political support which came as a by product of vitriolic anti-russian opinion, celebrity endorsement and more than one foundation dedicated to her and Objectivism.
Now did Nancy ever actually want to do this? I should think not. I assume while she did express her heartfelt opinion, she certainly didn't intend it to be political philosophy.

Beggars in Spain follows the life of "the Sleepless" , a group of genetically modified humans who do not need sleep and particularly Leisha Camden, one of the early Sleepless. They are modified by a group of geneticists who've come to the conclusion that sleep is an evolutionary leftover like tonsils and remove it with genetic modification. The resulting "Sleepless" are invariably intelligent because of the extra 12 hours of stimulation they get per day as children and the extra 8 hours of the day they have as adults. They are pragmatic and well-adjusted (some hormonal side-effect) and are all mostly followers of Yagaaism something that is very similar to Libertarianism.
Things come to a head when it is discovered that another "side-effect" of the turning off of the sleep gene is extremely efficient cell replacement in their bodies. i.e. they are effectively immortal. The Sleepless' pragmatism is confounded by the resistance and hatred they provoke in the normal population. They see themselves as an invaluable cog in the wheel of trade with a lot to offer to the world economy. But the Sleepers see the Sleepless less as cogs and more as a threat and replacement of normal human beings.
With increasing resistance culminating in the hate-killing of a Sleepless, the Sleepless move into an enclosure created by them for themselves called "Sanctuary". They cultivate hate for the Sleepers for their irrationality and their inability to match their prowess and refer to them as "Beggars".
The first book ends with it dawning on Leisha that the Beggars aren't really Beggars but are the receiving end of the economy because of context. Trade is not linear but conducted in an ecology where the beggars not only form an essential part but when the context changes, the Beggars may turn out to be the ones giving charity.

Now why do I say that this destroys Ayn Rand?
1. Trade IS an ecology. It certainly isn't linear and depends on context. The context might change with changes in economic environment, physical environment, socio-cultural environment, evolution... any number of things. Rand's view of the economy is simplistic to the point of being laughable.
2. As with the Fountainhead, in "beggars in spain", the epitomes of libertarianism necessarily HAVE to be EXCEPTIONAL people. As with Roark an exceptional architect, the Sleepless have to have exceptional things to give to the economy to prove their point. Why? Why can't Rand have used an ordinary worker at a Detroit auto factory to prove her point? Because she can't. At least not the way she defines her "Objectivism". Objectivism has a helluva lot of problems than libertarianism. As she defines it, there can be only one person with one exceptional ability. There can only be one exceptional architect. If there are two the other will starve to death. One might argue that if the other offers an advantage by working twice as long as the other but has only 1/2 of the creative ability, the market will be given a choice. No! You're forgetting that the rest of the society is objectivist too. They will all see the same benefits. They will ALL choose the same architect. The other will still starve to death. We are also assuming that this architect who will build a good architecture consultancy will, on his retirement, give his business totally up to the next competent architect wherever he might be. (Don't ask me how the next architect arrives precisely at the time this guy retires as he would've died of starvation if he's arrived earlier and society will have to do without an architect if he arrives later) without ensuring nurturing his blood progeny instead.
3. A civilisation based on "objectivism" reverts to tribalistic society. Small groups of people each providing a service/product to each other that they do best and others cannot; as purely objectivistic society cannot exist in larger groups with competing resources of same competence. Consequentially, innovation and invention suffers as society needs multi-disciplinary individuals, multi disciplinary teams, many people of similar competences etc. to further technology, thought and philosophy.
I honestly don't believe that an objectivist society that celebrates selfishness and ego ever developing the steam engine much less sub-atomic physics or spacecraft.
WORK IN PROGRESS :D