The last debate that I will watch for some time?

Begun on September 8 at 9:50 PM.

Republican Presidential Debate at the Reagan Library
NYT transcript

Chris Cillizza


It is significant when voting for Ron Paul would be choosing the "least of the evils" among the Republican candidates. Listening to Ron Paul during the debate I was reminded why he can't win--despite having the correct answer for many questions, he just doesn't sound presidential and he does not do well speaking ex tempore. He'll get the votes of the true believers, but I don't think other women would vote for him. Perry and Romney may look the part and sound polished, but their smug smiles annoy me. Perhaps they are true representatives of the Great Oligarchy Party.

Romney was horrible on immigration; he talked about the need to attract talent from other countries. Is he not aware that we are arguably neglecting the talent we already have, through outsourcing and a poor education system? Moreover, there is a limit to technological progress, but all of the Republican candidates were terrible on energy and sustainability. Where's Roscoe Bartlett when you need him?

He also talked about how immigrants cause real estate prices, citing Vancouver as a good example. So Romney supports the displacing of native, less affluent whites and the creation of ethnic enclaves? What about the rights of natives to stay in their home communities and maintain their roots? And does he not know that the increase in the value of houses is not the same as the increase in true wealth? What an ignoramus. Let's see how he would feel if he were to actually live in an non-white neighborhood.

Related:
CULTURE AND BEHAVIOR: The Human Nature of Unsustainability

If the distinction between the three economies, as discussed by John Michael Greer, is so important then why were Aristotle and the medievals ignorant? Well, Aristotle and the medievals were ignorant of many things, so that does not mean that the distinction is not significant or that it does not mark a a ture advance in understanding of economics and its dependence on the natural world. Medieval farmers may have understood the need to replenish their soil. But scientific knowledge about ecology and natural cycles was not even being discovered at that time? Given the relatively small size of communities and the more significant causes of death at that time, it wouldn't be surprising if very few or no medieval communities collapsed because of ecological causes or resource depletion. Fortunately Catholics such as E. F. Schumacher have picked up on the importance of ecology and sustainability and integrated it into their economic and political thought. There is much we can learn from non-Catholics still, even if we do not accept their practical suggestions for dealing with environmental issues.


Edit. Last night CNN handled the Tea Party Debate for the candidates in Florida. I didn't bother to watch it. A transcript.