So what have we learned from the shake-up in Egypt?
I think the most stunning lesson we learned was the power of social networking. If what we now think happened in Egypt is true, it will be revolutionary, literally revolutionary around the world. Wherever there is internet capability there will be the power to organize for a desired purpose; even take down a government.
We have known for a long time the younger generation had tapped into an instantaneous method of sharing information on a world-wide basis. We weren’t concerned about whether it would improve the human condition or not. It was a fun way for kids to stay in touch with one another.
On the surface it has been a little annoying to some of us older folks. We see our young people with a device in their hands seemingly 24-7. What in the world are they doing so much of their time?
Now we know that some of them weren’t just talking about girl friends and boy friends. The implications of this “network” thing are huge when you see the creative ways the technology is being applied. That creativity may spark debate about a need to regulate.
I suspect that governments around the world have been a little nervous about the possible outcomes in their own countries. The ones that now move toward clamping down on internet accessibility and restrict social networking are the ones we should watch because they know they have something to fear.
Where the outcome in Egypt worked out so far on the positive side, the potential could just as easily benefit a disruptive movement in any country for any purpose.
I am not sure how the government will be able to offset the power of social networking to link individuals with ideas from communicating them to others when the desired outcome is harm to our country as we know it today.
This tool is like a nuclear bomb in the hands of a street gang.
How can CPAC Pick Ron Paul?
by Steve DanaHow is it that Ron Paul who runs as a Republican, but is thought of as a Libertarian could win the Presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for the second year in a row last week?
What does that say about the attendees of the conference? Even though I agree with some of what Ron Paul says, I wouldn’t want him to be our President. I suspect that all the individuals who were contemplating a run said some things I might agree with but most probably wouldn’t get my vote either. The candidates who are thought to have a chance in the real world finished up the track in the straw poll. The talking heads in the Republican Party give some chance to Mitt Romney but I doubt many would bet any money on him. The problem with the straw poll is that the viable candidates fared so poorly.
I guess my concern about CPAC is the fact that there is clearly a disconnect between the attendees and the mainstream conservative voters so why should we care what happens there? If I were a serious candidate, I might pass on an event that didn’t reflect what is happening in the real world.
If the American Conservative Union expects to be relevant to Conservatives they need to clarify the mission of the conference. If Ron Paul supporters can skew the straw poll two years in a row, the conference is either not drawing real conservative attendees or Ron Paul is an authentic conservative and those other guys are pretenders.
I am not a member of the American Conservative Union, but I agree 100% with their stated Principles and the supplementary Sharon Statement. So I am a little disappointed that a renowned event like CPAC even bothers with a straw poll. Maybe a better idea would be to let the speakers have their say and just leave it at that.
Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »