Unlike General MacArthur, I have returned. It was a long, arduous semester, I didn't perform as well as I expected, but I survived, as all people eventually do. I finished all my applications to graduate schools, I'm working on job/internship/fellowship applications, blah blah blah. I'm in for an easy semester as it concerns my schoolwork, and for that, I'm thankful.
Anyway, on to more important things. First of all, the year of "doom" is upon us. We all know what that means: time to party every day until the end of 2012 like hedonists on cocaine until we all wake up the next day and realize that the world is still here and you have to apologize to your boss and co-workers for telling them to all fu** themselves. Also, make sure to remember whether or not you had condoms on you for those hazy, insane nights.
Second of all, and probably more important, Barack Obama just won the 2012 election. No, I'm not a fortune teller; looking at the state of the Republican opposition, it's pretty easy to see that Obama has a clear edge. The current Republican frontrunner, former speaker of the house and moleskin rug Newt Gingrich, has been racked with controversy. Both his public and private lives are enough to make even Herman Cain say "Damn! That guy's an asshole." Because of the ultra-conservative nature of the Republican Party (Tea Party), Gingrich has been bashing everyone he can for being "too moderate." Just recently, he went on the offensive against Romney, attacking in particular Romney's health care bill that was instituted while he was governor of Massachusetts. Funnily enough, a memo was just released from several years back that had Gingrich praising the plan. Go figure.
Third of all, the Euro. The doomsayers are creating the image that the Euro will break apart, meaning the end of the European Union, blah blah blah. The European Union won't break apart. It's facing a similar crisis that the United States faced back in its formative years, in that the debts of several states were dragging down the country. The beauty of the European Union is that it has the ability to adapt and learn, and from this, they shall learn.
This post may have seemed scatterbrained, and that's because it was. I'm just out of practice, and it's kind of late. Until next time, then.
Allons-y!
Das Flüg
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Damn it.
I'm tired.
It's been too long since I wrote in this. Since I last wrote, neutrinos flew faster than the speed of light, Palestine submitted a proposal to be recognized as a state through the UN, Rick Perry demonstrated how dumb is he, thousands upon thousands of pissed off regular Joes are Occupying Wall Street, and so much more. Yet, I'm busy studying, applying to scholarships for graduate school, applying to graduate school, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., etc.
If I don't post for a while, then check me out here.
That's all for now.
It's been too long since I wrote in this. Since I last wrote, neutrinos flew faster than the speed of light, Palestine submitted a proposal to be recognized as a state through the UN, Rick Perry demonstrated how dumb is he, thousands upon thousands of pissed off regular Joes are Occupying Wall Street, and so much more. Yet, I'm busy studying, applying to scholarships for graduate school, applying to graduate school, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., etc.
If I don't post for a while, then check me out here.
That's all for now.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Political Perpetualities
All of the candidates in the Republican field vying for the presidential nomination are running a relentless campaign, not against each other, but against Barack Obama. Each one is trying to flaunt their conservative, "traditional" credentials, and in doing so they are pandering to the lowest common denominator of the Republican party, the religious extreme. The only two different individuals out of the entire field are Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman.
Ron Paul is different from the field in that he doesn't equivocate; that is, he doesn't bother with lofty language praising America and stating that America is the best country in the world. Instead, he states exactly what he believes, which is something unheard of from a political candidate. His intentions and statements, however extreme, are sincere and concise explanations of what he believes. I don't agree with his beliefs, but I respect his ability to be honest.
Jon Huntsman recently said that "evolution is a fact" and that the members of the Republican party mustn't be the "anti-science" party. He is, of course, not the frontrunner, but he does have the moderate appeal that the Republicans need to win. The other candidates, such as Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Caine, et al., all question evolution and have admittedly frightening beliefs about their religions.
Of course, they must face the current president, Barack Obama. It seems that 3 years has passed and not much has happened in the way of progress, as he's given money to banks, allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue, didn't get a public option for healthcare, etc. etc. etc. He has time and time again conceded too much to Republicans and has moved away from legal action against those who created the recession in 2008 (some of whom are in his cabinet). I suppose the choice is a lesser of two evils.
This post may seem scatterbrained. That's because it is.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Ron Paul is different from the field in that he doesn't equivocate; that is, he doesn't bother with lofty language praising America and stating that America is the best country in the world. Instead, he states exactly what he believes, which is something unheard of from a political candidate. His intentions and statements, however extreme, are sincere and concise explanations of what he believes. I don't agree with his beliefs, but I respect his ability to be honest.
Jon Huntsman recently said that "evolution is a fact" and that the members of the Republican party mustn't be the "anti-science" party. He is, of course, not the frontrunner, but he does have the moderate appeal that the Republicans need to win. The other candidates, such as Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Caine, et al., all question evolution and have admittedly frightening beliefs about their religions.
Of course, they must face the current president, Barack Obama. It seems that 3 years has passed and not much has happened in the way of progress, as he's given money to banks, allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue, didn't get a public option for healthcare, etc. etc. etc. He has time and time again conceded too much to Republicans and has moved away from legal action against those who created the recession in 2008 (some of whom are in his cabinet). I suppose the choice is a lesser of two evils.
This post may seem scatterbrained. That's because it is.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Object of Importance
Think of 6 things you feel that you could never live without. What are they? A computer? An iPod? How do you assign so much value to an object that you deem it to be as important as your very being?
This may seem like an inane question, but it says a lot about the person in question, not just about their values, but about their personality as a whole. Some might prefer a certain item for its utility, i.e. its functionality in everyday life; a computer, a car, mobile phone, etc., are typical examples. Some might prefer a certain item for its sentimental value, such as books, certain jewelry, etc. Others might prefer items for more vain purposes, such as fashion trends or hedonistic urges. It all depends on how we, as individuals, are taught to view items and their relationships to us and the world.
Right now, write down (since you probably won't, just think about them) 6 objects without which you would feel incomplete. Answer these questions about them:
1. What is it about that item that you feel makes it desirable over anything else?
2. How would you function in your daily life without that item?
3. What in the major qualities of that item have a major effect, undeniable (usually positive) effect on your life? How does it affect your life positively?
Everyone's answers are different, but typically today most people mention mobile phones, computers, cars, television, books, and perhaps food.
On a more extreme note, some people seem to exaggerate the importance of certain items on their daily lives. It is entirely possible to live without all the daily amenities to which we have become accustomed, ie. the internet, computers, artificial lite, etc. Once a person is stripped of all his/her amenities, however, it becomes obvious that the items that were previously considered important are no more useful than a square wheel.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
This may seem like an inane question, but it says a lot about the person in question, not just about their values, but about their personality as a whole. Some might prefer a certain item for its utility, i.e. its functionality in everyday life; a computer, a car, mobile phone, etc., are typical examples. Some might prefer a certain item for its sentimental value, such as books, certain jewelry, etc. Others might prefer items for more vain purposes, such as fashion trends or hedonistic urges. It all depends on how we, as individuals, are taught to view items and their relationships to us and the world.
Right now, write down (since you probably won't, just think about them) 6 objects without which you would feel incomplete. Answer these questions about them:
1. What is it about that item that you feel makes it desirable over anything else?
2. How would you function in your daily life without that item?
3. What in the major qualities of that item have a major effect, undeniable (usually positive) effect on your life? How does it affect your life positively?
Everyone's answers are different, but typically today most people mention mobile phones, computers, cars, television, books, and perhaps food.
On a more extreme note, some people seem to exaggerate the importance of certain items on their daily lives. It is entirely possible to live without all the daily amenities to which we have become accustomed, ie. the internet, computers, artificial lite, etc. Once a person is stripped of all his/her amenities, however, it becomes obvious that the items that were previously considered important are no more useful than a square wheel.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Turn of Phrase
I was driving back from the gym the other day, and somehow my mind wandered to how the colloquial meanings of words change over time; in particular, I thought about the word immigrant. Perhaps it was seeing an Hispanic person drive past me in the other lane, or perhaps it was the burrito I was going to have after I returned home; nonetheless, the thought had entered my mind.
I remember being taught about immigration in grade school and learning about the (highly propagandized) belief that each and every immigrant came to the US in search of the "perfect life," aka the "American Dream," and that it was achievable by working hard and being an upstanding citizen. In particular, we were taught that everyone in the world wants to be like us, (a rather egotistical and tangential point) and that we should be accepting of those who emerged from different cultures.
Coming from a town where approximately 1/3 of students in my high school were Caucasian, with the other 2/3 reserved mostly for East Asian and Indian, with a few African Americans mixed in, I am used to diversity; I never found anyone's culture, regardless of their origins, to be that strange. I still held the innate belief that immigrants should be accepted by all, and I held it to heart.
I assume that you would expect my belief to have changed, and I suppose it has, though not without undue influence from external sources; in other words, because the word "immigration" has been so often coupled with pejorative terms of late, I have noticed that some of my opinions have become less welcoming and amiable. That being said, I still act on my geniality to its fullest extent.
To call someone an "immigrant" in America is now a sign of derogation; where it once simply described someone's status as an American citizen, it now has come to implicitly stand for "intruder," "criminal," "interloper," etc.
Why should a simple word change so drastically?
A few years ago, illegal immigration from the southernmost border of the United States became a hot topic, as it does every so often. Those crossing the border were portrayed as attempting to steal very "precious" American jobs by working for below minimum wage, along with giving birth to children in the US in order to have their kids be American citizens, somehow enabling the child's parents to be retrieved somehow later (though it's ludicrous, seeing as the child has to wait until he/she is 18 to apply for residency for his/her parents, and then the typical waiting time is 10 years). Thus, the "immigrant" was tainted; an Arizona law allowed for police to "randomly check" people who seemed "suspicious"; pundits railed against the lack of security along the border, that there should be a gigantic fence, etc.
The same applies to the word "gay"; where it once meant "happy," it is now a synonym for "bad"; what causes the change in meanings? Is it simply one's perception of a certain group as defined by some rather meaningless characteristic?
I suppose there is no final thought to this post. I guess that's how my summer has been- no sense of finality.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
I remember being taught about immigration in grade school and learning about the (highly propagandized) belief that each and every immigrant came to the US in search of the "perfect life," aka the "American Dream," and that it was achievable by working hard and being an upstanding citizen. In particular, we were taught that everyone in the world wants to be like us, (a rather egotistical and tangential point) and that we should be accepting of those who emerged from different cultures.
Coming from a town where approximately 1/3 of students in my high school were Caucasian, with the other 2/3 reserved mostly for East Asian and Indian, with a few African Americans mixed in, I am used to diversity; I never found anyone's culture, regardless of their origins, to be that strange. I still held the innate belief that immigrants should be accepted by all, and I held it to heart.
I assume that you would expect my belief to have changed, and I suppose it has, though not without undue influence from external sources; in other words, because the word "immigration" has been so often coupled with pejorative terms of late, I have noticed that some of my opinions have become less welcoming and amiable. That being said, I still act on my geniality to its fullest extent.
To call someone an "immigrant" in America is now a sign of derogation; where it once simply described someone's status as an American citizen, it now has come to implicitly stand for "intruder," "criminal," "interloper," etc.
Why should a simple word change so drastically?
A few years ago, illegal immigration from the southernmost border of the United States became a hot topic, as it does every so often. Those crossing the border were portrayed as attempting to steal very "precious" American jobs by working for below minimum wage, along with giving birth to children in the US in order to have their kids be American citizens, somehow enabling the child's parents to be retrieved somehow later (though it's ludicrous, seeing as the child has to wait until he/she is 18 to apply for residency for his/her parents, and then the typical waiting time is 10 years). Thus, the "immigrant" was tainted; an Arizona law allowed for police to "randomly check" people who seemed "suspicious"; pundits railed against the lack of security along the border, that there should be a gigantic fence, etc.
The same applies to the word "gay"; where it once meant "happy," it is now a synonym for "bad"; what causes the change in meanings? Is it simply one's perception of a certain group as defined by some rather meaningless characteristic?
I suppose there is no final thought to this post. I guess that's how my summer has been- no sense of finality.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Trepidations
Oh boy.
Now that the GRE has been taken, I have the daunting task of applying for various fellowships, grants, and graduate schools. It's not so much the task of filling out forms or writing personal statements that I find arduous; it's more the fact that, little by little, I find my childhood slipping away as I head down the road to adulthood and responsibility.
With the combination of the end of some of my childhood favorites (Harry Potter, Smallville, etc.) and the inauspicious addition of impending graduate school, it seems that my future is hitting me at full force without allowing me to gently ease into it. I suppose though that anything inevitable always comes at full force; the only difference between how it hits us is our perception of it, I suppose.
Who am I to complain though? I am simply going through the same process that every human being has ever gone through and will go through until either the end of time or our species evolves into incorporeal forms of matter. Like many of my brethren, I feel like I'm not ready.
I feel like my childhood was not a childhood, but rather a shove into adulthood. My undergraduate college years feel as if every day has passed and little has been achieved. I'm not ready. I'm afraid.
I suppose that's why I related so well to Harry Potter. He never had the typical childhood, and neither did I. Unlike me, however, he shouldered the burden put on him to defeat Lord Voldemort.
I guess that makes the struggles before me my own personal Dark Lord. And just like in Harry, my struggles are too a part of my soul. Perhaps it's time to batten down the hatches and charge full-force at this malevolent apparition before me. I can overcome it. I am stronger than the struggles of my own creation.
Here's to hoping it doesn't take the destruction of Hogwarts for me to move forward.
Best,
DF
Now that the GRE has been taken, I have the daunting task of applying for various fellowships, grants, and graduate schools. It's not so much the task of filling out forms or writing personal statements that I find arduous; it's more the fact that, little by little, I find my childhood slipping away as I head down the road to adulthood and responsibility.
With the combination of the end of some of my childhood favorites (Harry Potter, Smallville, etc.) and the inauspicious addition of impending graduate school, it seems that my future is hitting me at full force without allowing me to gently ease into it. I suppose though that anything inevitable always comes at full force; the only difference between how it hits us is our perception of it, I suppose.
Who am I to complain though? I am simply going through the same process that every human being has ever gone through and will go through until either the end of time or our species evolves into incorporeal forms of matter. Like many of my brethren, I feel like I'm not ready.
I feel like my childhood was not a childhood, but rather a shove into adulthood. My undergraduate college years feel as if every day has passed and little has been achieved. I'm not ready. I'm afraid.
I suppose that's why I related so well to Harry Potter. He never had the typical childhood, and neither did I. Unlike me, however, he shouldered the burden put on him to defeat Lord Voldemort.
I guess that makes the struggles before me my own personal Dark Lord. And just like in Harry, my struggles are too a part of my soul. Perhaps it's time to batten down the hatches and charge full-force at this malevolent apparition before me. I can overcome it. I am stronger than the struggles of my own creation.
Here's to hoping it doesn't take the destruction of Hogwarts for me to move forward.
Best,
DF
Thursday, June 30, 2011
On Hiatus
I'm going to take a sabbatical from life in order to better study for the GRE, which I have on the 13th of July. See you then.
DF
DF
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
My Ideal World
Some would say that conditions in the world right now are worse than they have ever been, and that may be true for some things: climate change, modern war, public political scandals, etc. Those, however, did not prompt me to think about my ideal world; playing Pandemic 2 did.
The game involves you creating a disease that is supposed to eradicate the human population while the human population eventually attempts to fight back by creating a vaccine to your virus/bacteria/parasite. The disease starts in a randomly assigned country, whether it is the United States or Madagascar. At a certain level, the disease becomes noticed (though the game is flawed in that it takes a long time for a country to notice an outbreak, whereas in real life 200,000 people exhibiting unique symptoms with the same disease would be very public) and countries begin to close their borders, their ports, and their air travel. While it is a game that takes a scenario to an extreme, it is worth thinking about.
For example, would countries cut off all communication with each other upon discovery of the disease within the affected country, or would medical aid flow into the affected country? Most likely, the latter would happen. The game makes no mention of this contingency. (Eventually, everyone in all affected countries become infected unless a vaccine is developed.)
How does this lead into my grandiose portrait of an ideal world? Two simple words: International cooperation, my friend.
In my ideal world (and political conservatives will likely vilify me for this), the world has a unified government. This unified government is all-encompassing, including all countries under one united Earth umbrella. Countries reserve a degree of autonomy, much like states do within the United States. The united world government, however, remains predominant in all cases dealing with law. Having all countries under one government would improve the world by:
-Expediting international cooperation in times of duress, such as during natural disasters.
-Ensuring universal human rights for all people.
-Bolstering the economies of traditionally weaker countries.
Before I begin talking about this world's economic system, it is necessary to state that countries dedicate more money towards education and scientific research than military spending, religious spending, etc. Health is paramount, so proven carcinogens such as tobacco are gone, as well as manufactured food additives, such as high fructose corn syrup and partially-hydrogenated oils.
At first, the economy would be based on traditional trade between countries, i.e. food, transportation, etc. Eventually, as technology develops, food and products will be commonly synthesized by advanced technology, thus rendering the trade of items for profit superfluous. (Research into this is being carried out in Japan already, though not as directly as I would hope.)
Thus, the economy would no longer be based in money due to an abundance of necessary goods.
This would entail a new fundamental philosophy of all human existence: Instead of each individual doggedly pursuing an accumulation of material capital in order to live well, the value of education and pursuit of knowledge would have to replace money as the driving force of mankind.
Knowledge can be progressed by the exploration of space. Humans have yet to break the seal on the vast scores of knowledge the galaxy, let alone the universe, holds. We reside as a veritable dust particle in a mansion. There is so much to explore and learn that only generations from now will humans truly understand their place in the universe. (That is, if this future comes to fruition.)
Being an Atheist, I can only hope that my imagined future is full of Atheists; however, that's unlikely, so tolerance for all beliefs will be a key concept in this overly idealistic future. Even more fundamental concepts that should be taught are logic, rationality, and empathy. A combination of the three, with each assuming an equal role in human relations and interaction, can assure equal understanding both between humans and the world in which we live.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. I may have neglected to mention some things, so just leave any concerns/questions in the comments section and I'll respond forthwith.
The game involves you creating a disease that is supposed to eradicate the human population while the human population eventually attempts to fight back by creating a vaccine to your virus/bacteria/parasite. The disease starts in a randomly assigned country, whether it is the United States or Madagascar. At a certain level, the disease becomes noticed (though the game is flawed in that it takes a long time for a country to notice an outbreak, whereas in real life 200,000 people exhibiting unique symptoms with the same disease would be very public) and countries begin to close their borders, their ports, and their air travel. While it is a game that takes a scenario to an extreme, it is worth thinking about.
For example, would countries cut off all communication with each other upon discovery of the disease within the affected country, or would medical aid flow into the affected country? Most likely, the latter would happen. The game makes no mention of this contingency. (Eventually, everyone in all affected countries become infected unless a vaccine is developed.)
How does this lead into my grandiose portrait of an ideal world? Two simple words: International cooperation, my friend.
In my ideal world (and political conservatives will likely vilify me for this), the world has a unified government. This unified government is all-encompassing, including all countries under one united Earth umbrella. Countries reserve a degree of autonomy, much like states do within the United States. The united world government, however, remains predominant in all cases dealing with law. Having all countries under one government would improve the world by:
-Expediting international cooperation in times of duress, such as during natural disasters.
-Ensuring universal human rights for all people.
-Bolstering the economies of traditionally weaker countries.
Before I begin talking about this world's economic system, it is necessary to state that countries dedicate more money towards education and scientific research than military spending, religious spending, etc. Health is paramount, so proven carcinogens such as tobacco are gone, as well as manufactured food additives, such as high fructose corn syrup and partially-hydrogenated oils.
At first, the economy would be based on traditional trade between countries, i.e. food, transportation, etc. Eventually, as technology develops, food and products will be commonly synthesized by advanced technology, thus rendering the trade of items for profit superfluous. (Research into this is being carried out in Japan already, though not as directly as I would hope.)
Thus, the economy would no longer be based in money due to an abundance of necessary goods.
This would entail a new fundamental philosophy of all human existence: Instead of each individual doggedly pursuing an accumulation of material capital in order to live well, the value of education and pursuit of knowledge would have to replace money as the driving force of mankind.
Knowledge can be progressed by the exploration of space. Humans have yet to break the seal on the vast scores of knowledge the galaxy, let alone the universe, holds. We reside as a veritable dust particle in a mansion. There is so much to explore and learn that only generations from now will humans truly understand their place in the universe. (That is, if this future comes to fruition.)
Being an Atheist, I can only hope that my imagined future is full of Atheists; however, that's unlikely, so tolerance for all beliefs will be a key concept in this overly idealistic future. Even more fundamental concepts that should be taught are logic, rationality, and empathy. A combination of the three, with each assuming an equal role in human relations and interaction, can assure equal understanding both between humans and the world in which we live.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. I may have neglected to mention some things, so just leave any concerns/questions in the comments section and I'll respond forthwith.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Technological Progress
15 years ago, no one imagined that wireless networks would be everywhere and available for every laptop to connect to. Tablet computers such as the iPad were only seen on TV shows such as Star Trek. Hybrid cars were unheard of. Some say that technological progress is inevitable, but what about technological regression?
If I were to ask you to imagine what surgery would look like in the Roman Empire, you would likely think of it as a dirty process, often involving an eventual infection and possibly even amputation. This, however, was not the case.
Claudius Galenus, better known as Galen, is known to have performed surgeries that are commonplace even today, and he performed them successfully. He created sutures, repaired broken bones, and even attempted to replace a missing part of a child's skull (he was initially successful, though the child died a few years later). He knew to sterilize wounds, and contrary to whatever you may believe, he did not simply leave a person's healing to the whims of Asclepius. His knowledge was lost after the empire fell, though it was rediscovered in the Renaissance.
Running water and working sewage systems are thought of as a discovery of the industrial age, though this is grossly incorrect. Rome had running water available for the masses, and even garrisons as far as England set up irrigation systems and plumbing systems that rival those of today. After the empire fell, the middle ages was full of, well, let's say dirty water.
Among other examples, ancient Greeks and Romans used flamethrowers (though without the extreme long range of modern ones), advanced catapults (moreso than the ones built in the Middle Ages), heliocentric models of the solar system (Aristarchus), tank-like vehicles, accurate calendars and star charts, and even batteries. What happened to all of this?
The most understandable explanation is that the Library of Alexandria, the repository for knowledge during the ancient times, was destroyed and much of the literature was burned after the advent of Christianity and Islam. Thus, technological progress stopped and regressed approximately 500 years to the point where plumbing was unheard of and amulets and magic spells were used to treat sicknesses.
You might be asking yourself "so what's the point of this lecture?" I suppose my point is to demonstrate that, no matter how much you want to believe that humans have always striven for great progress, we haven't. We've followed avaricious desires to the precipice and over the edge, and we've lost so much. Who knows, if the technology and innovation created in ancient times had not been lost, there may have been colonies on the moon and Mars, and maybe we would even be exploring extrasolar planets.
Sad to think about.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
If I were to ask you to imagine what surgery would look like in the Roman Empire, you would likely think of it as a dirty process, often involving an eventual infection and possibly even amputation. This, however, was not the case.
Claudius Galenus, better known as Galen, is known to have performed surgeries that are commonplace even today, and he performed them successfully. He created sutures, repaired broken bones, and even attempted to replace a missing part of a child's skull (he was initially successful, though the child died a few years later). He knew to sterilize wounds, and contrary to whatever you may believe, he did not simply leave a person's healing to the whims of Asclepius. His knowledge was lost after the empire fell, though it was rediscovered in the Renaissance.
Running water and working sewage systems are thought of as a discovery of the industrial age, though this is grossly incorrect. Rome had running water available for the masses, and even garrisons as far as England set up irrigation systems and plumbing systems that rival those of today. After the empire fell, the middle ages was full of, well, let's say dirty water.
Among other examples, ancient Greeks and Romans used flamethrowers (though without the extreme long range of modern ones), advanced catapults (moreso than the ones built in the Middle Ages), heliocentric models of the solar system (Aristarchus), tank-like vehicles, accurate calendars and star charts, and even batteries. What happened to all of this?
The most understandable explanation is that the Library of Alexandria, the repository for knowledge during the ancient times, was destroyed and much of the literature was burned after the advent of Christianity and Islam. Thus, technological progress stopped and regressed approximately 500 years to the point where plumbing was unheard of and amulets and magic spells were used to treat sicknesses.
You might be asking yourself "so what's the point of this lecture?" I suppose my point is to demonstrate that, no matter how much you want to believe that humans have always striven for great progress, we haven't. We've followed avaricious desires to the precipice and over the edge, and we've lost so much. Who knows, if the technology and innovation created in ancient times had not been lost, there may have been colonies on the moon and Mars, and maybe we would even be exploring extrasolar planets.
Sad to think about.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Sunday, June 5, 2011
"God is Love"
Sorry I have not posted anything in a while; I've been working on a political campaign.
I recently came across the idiom "God is Love," which I believe refers to a requited loving relationship between the biblical God and his (or it's, because why would God have a gender?) worshipers, i.e. if you promise to love God, he/she/it/them will love you in return. Instead, I began thinking about this phrase in what could be it's most literal meaning: God, or a belief in God, is in fact love.
I suppose I'll have to have a different definition of love than is typically adhered to; love, in this sense, would represent a feeling or acknowledgement of belonging and acceptance regardless of personal or physical faults, traits that are often mocked or scorned in society. The fact (as claimed by proselytizers) that God would accept a person regardless of their downfalls is a comfortable feeling, almost like being wrapped up in the arms of a lover. That someone, whether they are a supernatural deity or not, is willing to accept the totality of a person means that those who consider themselves faulty will have some chance at redemption, since God is all-forgiving and understanding (at least in some beliefs).
Thus, the feeling of embracing the notion of a God is one of love- acceptance, comfort, a jovial quid pro quo of love and forgiveness.
One would wonder whether this would set a bad precedent, i.e. if one's relationships always fail, there is always the love of the intangible God to fall back upon. Does that mean that instead of attempting to improve one's acknowledged faults, one would simply turn towards the comfort of a supernatural being? Does this negate human love in any way? Would a love (a true love instead of a superficial one that many hold) of God require a diligent and constant devotion towards maintaining the preternatural relationship? There are too many open-ended questions for my taste.
Being the ardently Socialist-Communist-Jedi-Lennonist (not misspelled) Atheist that I am, the consideration of a relationship with an omnipotent being doesn't concern me. I go about my life as anyone else- seeking comfort, warmth, love, friendship, happiness, prosperity, etc. If I do, mazel tov; if not, tough luck.
Anyway, there's my two cents on that. In other news, I need to study for the GREs. They're in a month. Hooray.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
I recently came across the idiom "God is Love," which I believe refers to a requited loving relationship between the biblical God and his (or it's, because why would God have a gender?) worshipers, i.e. if you promise to love God, he/she/it/them will love you in return. Instead, I began thinking about this phrase in what could be it's most literal meaning: God, or a belief in God, is in fact love.
I suppose I'll have to have a different definition of love than is typically adhered to; love, in this sense, would represent a feeling or acknowledgement of belonging and acceptance regardless of personal or physical faults, traits that are often mocked or scorned in society. The fact (as claimed by proselytizers) that God would accept a person regardless of their downfalls is a comfortable feeling, almost like being wrapped up in the arms of a lover. That someone, whether they are a supernatural deity or not, is willing to accept the totality of a person means that those who consider themselves faulty will have some chance at redemption, since God is all-forgiving and understanding (at least in some beliefs).
Thus, the feeling of embracing the notion of a God is one of love- acceptance, comfort, a jovial quid pro quo of love and forgiveness.
One would wonder whether this would set a bad precedent, i.e. if one's relationships always fail, there is always the love of the intangible God to fall back upon. Does that mean that instead of attempting to improve one's acknowledged faults, one would simply turn towards the comfort of a supernatural being? Does this negate human love in any way? Would a love (a true love instead of a superficial one that many hold) of God require a diligent and constant devotion towards maintaining the preternatural relationship? There are too many open-ended questions for my taste.
Being the ardently Socialist-Communist-Jedi-Lennonist (not misspelled) Atheist that I am, the consideration of a relationship with an omnipotent being doesn't concern me. I go about my life as anyone else- seeking comfort, warmth, love, friendship, happiness, prosperity, etc. If I do, mazel tov; if not, tough luck.
Anyway, there's my two cents on that. In other news, I need to study for the GREs. They're in a month. Hooray.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
I'm Useless
Another summer without employment; this has become the archetype for me. Even when I am employed, I hold jobs with little impact upon any future career path, even though I have not had a job for 2 years now. The saddest part is that I have applied for jobs/internships for which I am actually qualified, and I probably will never hear back from those companies with a decision. Needless to say, I'm irritated.
So, why did I say it if it's needless to say? Perhaps it's necessary; I need to vent my frustration towards the total lack of opportunity for me to advance myself in some desired career in life. I'd rather not become a salesman, or a manager of a Wal-Mart, or a stock broker, even though those are the jobs I found that I was most qualified for at a recent job fair I attended. A major in political science is worth about as much as the paper on which my diploma will be printed.
What am I to do if I end up with a terrible job that lands me in a cubicle? Do I do all the grunt work, accept the alienating push of the labor forced upon me just for a measly salary with little to no prospects for my future? What the hell do I do?
I'm going to take a nap.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
So, why did I say it if it's needless to say? Perhaps it's necessary; I need to vent my frustration towards the total lack of opportunity for me to advance myself in some desired career in life. I'd rather not become a salesman, or a manager of a Wal-Mart, or a stock broker, even though those are the jobs I found that I was most qualified for at a recent job fair I attended. A major in political science is worth about as much as the paper on which my diploma will be printed.
What am I to do if I end up with a terrible job that lands me in a cubicle? Do I do all the grunt work, accept the alienating push of the labor forced upon me just for a measly salary with little to no prospects for my future? What the hell do I do?
I'm going to take a nap.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Monday, May 16, 2011
An Ideology of Logic
A person's idiosyncratic ideology is formed by their experiences and socialization in life. Typically, if someone is raised in a background of poverty, they are more likely to view the world as unfair and weighed against them than someone who was brought up in relative affluence. Ideologies are always deeply entrenched because they are essentially the identity of the person in question; to question their ideology is to question their existence.
Thus, because questioning someone's ideology is construed as a personal attack, it becomes incumbent upon the individual to analyze his own beliefs based on whether or not they are grounded in fundamentally logical principles. As one would expect, almost no one willingly analyzes the root of their beliefs in an attempt to find inherent logic, and thus when confronted with an opposing ideology, the average person finds it quizzical and, in some cases, barbaric.
As with any line of logical thought, one must always analyze the premises behind the conclusion being drawn, i.e. whether or not they are fallacious.
A simple example is one's belief in government-funded social welfare programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. A belief that these programs are necessary is not necessarily rooted in altruism for-its-own-sake as many would believe, but is instead believed to be necessary because the covenant between the electorate and the government implies that the government has a standing responsibility to give a modicum of care to those who are unable to care for themselves. Some may believe in social welfare because they are naturally altruistic (though some would argue egotism, a tangential point), or some may believe in social welfare because of the belief that all people should be given a fair chance to succeed in society; others believe that ensuring the welfare of a segment of society would embolden society as a whole.
One who believes in a notion of "rugged individualism" would dismiss social welfare as enabling poor people to become slovenly and comfortable in their lives. This ideology comes with the belief in the "self-made man" and that those who want success have the means to achieve it. Essentially, this is a belief that there is a culture of poverty, in that it is a "community" of people who seek to take advantage of the social welfare system in order to continue a life of licentiousness.
Look at these two options. The one that you disagree with is likely to elicit some kind of reaction from you, which may be in the form of a facial expression, a snort, or a feeling of anger while reading it. This is perfectly natural; you are defending your viewpoint, your world. Before reading on, however, think about the position you favor, and answer these questions: From where does your belief originate? Are there overwhelming facts to support your belief? Does your belief follow a strict set of morals? If so, how are those morals defined? Why do you believe in this set of morals, i.e. why do you believe this set of morals to be superior to another?
These are tough questions to ask oneself, and it is quite understandable. My attempt here, though possibly irrelevant, was to open your mind to opposing ideologies and understand the reasoning behind them. Once the reasoning behind an opponent's ideology is understood, one's own ideology is better understood. This occurs because you would be able to parallel the underlying premises of the two ideologies. You may find, however, that you don't agree with the premises, in which case, don't blame me for anything at all. Please. I'm just a poor college student.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Thus, because questioning someone's ideology is construed as a personal attack, it becomes incumbent upon the individual to analyze his own beliefs based on whether or not they are grounded in fundamentally logical principles. As one would expect, almost no one willingly analyzes the root of their beliefs in an attempt to find inherent logic, and thus when confronted with an opposing ideology, the average person finds it quizzical and, in some cases, barbaric.
As with any line of logical thought, one must always analyze the premises behind the conclusion being drawn, i.e. whether or not they are fallacious.
A simple example is one's belief in government-funded social welfare programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. A belief that these programs are necessary is not necessarily rooted in altruism for-its-own-sake as many would believe, but is instead believed to be necessary because the covenant between the electorate and the government implies that the government has a standing responsibility to give a modicum of care to those who are unable to care for themselves. Some may believe in social welfare because they are naturally altruistic (though some would argue egotism, a tangential point), or some may believe in social welfare because of the belief that all people should be given a fair chance to succeed in society; others believe that ensuring the welfare of a segment of society would embolden society as a whole.
One who believes in a notion of "rugged individualism" would dismiss social welfare as enabling poor people to become slovenly and comfortable in their lives. This ideology comes with the belief in the "self-made man" and that those who want success have the means to achieve it. Essentially, this is a belief that there is a culture of poverty, in that it is a "community" of people who seek to take advantage of the social welfare system in order to continue a life of licentiousness.
Look at these two options. The one that you disagree with is likely to elicit some kind of reaction from you, which may be in the form of a facial expression, a snort, or a feeling of anger while reading it. This is perfectly natural; you are defending your viewpoint, your world. Before reading on, however, think about the position you favor, and answer these questions: From where does your belief originate? Are there overwhelming facts to support your belief? Does your belief follow a strict set of morals? If so, how are those morals defined? Why do you believe in this set of morals, i.e. why do you believe this set of morals to be superior to another?
These are tough questions to ask oneself, and it is quite understandable. My attempt here, though possibly irrelevant, was to open your mind to opposing ideologies and understand the reasoning behind them. Once the reasoning behind an opponent's ideology is understood, one's own ideology is better understood. This occurs because you would be able to parallel the underlying premises of the two ideologies. You may find, however, that you don't agree with the premises, in which case, don't blame me for anything at all. Please. I'm just a poor college student.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Painting Your Life
Every person, whether they realize it or not, has a central theme (called an invariant organizing principle in psychology) that runs throughout their life. It is not necessarily a theme in the sense of a movie, but rather it is a theme that dictates your predispositions in certain situations. These themes often show themselves in the work of artists or in the books of writers. Stephen King, for example, writes mostly of inanimate objects being the central antagonists of his books because, at a very young age, he witnessed a friend of his get hit by a train. He has stated that he doesn't remember the incident, but clearly it impacted his entire life.
So, I've come up with a little exercise to determine what theme runs throughout your unconscious processes. First, close your eyes. Actually, don't close your eyes yet because you have to read the rest of this. If you did close your eyes, shame on you. Close your eyes after reading this whole spiel. Anyway, close your eyes and allow your mind to wander for a minute or so. Once you feel that your mind is sufficiently meandering, imagine an empty, white room. The room can be of whatever shape your heart so desires since it is a representation of your mind. Once you see your room, paint the walls whatever color you feel most comfortable with. You don't have to paint a solid color; you could paint your own mural or a terrible drawing of a boat on water, whatever you so desire.
Once you've painted the walls, add pictures to the walls. They could be of family or artist's paintings, simple-framed or framed by the most elaborate scheme known to man. Once you have done that, populate the room with items you feel would suit YOUR room. This includes everything: furniture, technology, pets, a life-sized model of a stormtrooper, cars, snagglepuss, whatever. Finally, think of what people you would want in your room. It doesn't matter if they're dead, alive, fictional, or Justin Bieber.
If you've done this and can see your room clearly, congratulations! The color you painted your room best represents your overall character, with the pictures on the walls representing that which you most respect and/or treasure. The items in your room are your idiosyncrasies and unique characteristics, while the people are those you trust and/or care for the most.
There, I've just told you how to be introspective. I think you owe me 5 bucks. If this didn't work for you, there is another exercise you can do: find random images, not ones you've searched for, and write short 200-400 word stories about them. The stories should include what happened in the picture, what is happening, and what is going to happen. Write, say, 10 of them, and read them over to find a theme. Give them to friends, family, your dog to eat, whomever you so desire, and ask them to see if they could find a theme.
If that didn't work for you either, then go draw or paint something. If you lack the artistic ability to do either of those things, I'm not sure why you've been reading up to this point anyway. Stop it. Seriously, stop reading. There is nothing more for you here. If you are continuing to read this regardless of what I have previously typed, I believe that you have too much leisure time on your hands. Get a hobby. I have heard that baseball cards are becoming worthwhile again.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
So, I've come up with a little exercise to determine what theme runs throughout your unconscious processes. First, close your eyes. Actually, don't close your eyes yet because you have to read the rest of this. If you did close your eyes, shame on you. Close your eyes after reading this whole spiel. Anyway, close your eyes and allow your mind to wander for a minute or so. Once you feel that your mind is sufficiently meandering, imagine an empty, white room. The room can be of whatever shape your heart so desires since it is a representation of your mind. Once you see your room, paint the walls whatever color you feel most comfortable with. You don't have to paint a solid color; you could paint your own mural or a terrible drawing of a boat on water, whatever you so desire.
Once you've painted the walls, add pictures to the walls. They could be of family or artist's paintings, simple-framed or framed by the most elaborate scheme known to man. Once you have done that, populate the room with items you feel would suit YOUR room. This includes everything: furniture, technology, pets, a life-sized model of a stormtrooper, cars, snagglepuss, whatever. Finally, think of what people you would want in your room. It doesn't matter if they're dead, alive, fictional, or Justin Bieber.
If you've done this and can see your room clearly, congratulations! The color you painted your room best represents your overall character, with the pictures on the walls representing that which you most respect and/or treasure. The items in your room are your idiosyncrasies and unique characteristics, while the people are those you trust and/or care for the most.
There, I've just told you how to be introspective. I think you owe me 5 bucks. If this didn't work for you, there is another exercise you can do: find random images, not ones you've searched for, and write short 200-400 word stories about them. The stories should include what happened in the picture, what is happening, and what is going to happen. Write, say, 10 of them, and read them over to find a theme. Give them to friends, family, your dog to eat, whomever you so desire, and ask them to see if they could find a theme.
If that didn't work for you either, then go draw or paint something. If you lack the artistic ability to do either of those things, I'm not sure why you've been reading up to this point anyway. Stop it. Seriously, stop reading. There is nothing more for you here. If you are continuing to read this regardless of what I have previously typed, I believe that you have too much leisure time on your hands. Get a hobby. I have heard that baseball cards are becoming worthwhile again.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Monday, May 2, 2011
Reactions
I didn't dare to open a newspaper today. Not a single one drew my interest. I already knew the gist, and I don't care for the finer details. No two papers had the same headline, but they all screamed the same nauseating exuberance of a false victory. Some were a bit more explicit, as with the New York Post's "Got Him! Vengeance at Last! US Finally Nails the Bastard!", or the New York Times' hilariously objective "Bin Laden Killed By US Forces In Pakistan, Obama Says, Declaring Justice Has Been Done." I didn't read any article today. I simply didn't want to. I didn't want to read about the minutiae of planning the operation while coordinating with all the relative intelligence agencies, or reactions from Congress, or anything diverting attention away from the reaction of the American people. How are we to feel?
If I were anyone else reading this post, I would snort haughtily and say "I'm to feel incredible! A blow for justice in the world has been dealt, and we are now vindicated!", but I'm not anyone else. I can't celebrate death, even in the taking of someone described as "enemy number 1." I can't, and I won't. A man was killed who, believe it or not, was fighting for his convictions and his way of life, however strange that way of life would seem when juxtaposed with ours. Here was a man who witnessed American and Israeli forces killing Lebanese civilians without so much as a second thought, and so to him, his actions were justified. Above all, he was a man, not a monster.
To him, the United States was the monster. It was a monster constituted of avarice and disregard for human life, one composed of demons and only a modicum of respectable people. He was not evil, he was not, as a rather ignorant classmate of mine so eagerly spouted today, a "dirtbag," and he was not so different from every American in the wake of 9/11. His unfortunate experiences colored his perspective on life, just like our experience did for us. If you cannot understand that, I express my condolences.
Turning someone into an object is easy; all it takes is a certain disregard for their past and their personality. It requires a lack of empathy and understanding that is so easy to elicit when in times of duress, as we are so eager to ease the pain of any inflicted wound.
To celebrate the killing of an enemy is to condone death to those we deem as "enemies." Could this lead to a belief that the world is monochromatic, that everything is simply good and evil and that we are always on the side of righteousness? I don't know. Somehow, I'd rather not find out.
That's all.
If I were anyone else reading this post, I would snort haughtily and say "I'm to feel incredible! A blow for justice in the world has been dealt, and we are now vindicated!", but I'm not anyone else. I can't celebrate death, even in the taking of someone described as "enemy number 1." I can't, and I won't. A man was killed who, believe it or not, was fighting for his convictions and his way of life, however strange that way of life would seem when juxtaposed with ours. Here was a man who witnessed American and Israeli forces killing Lebanese civilians without so much as a second thought, and so to him, his actions were justified. Above all, he was a man, not a monster.
To him, the United States was the monster. It was a monster constituted of avarice and disregard for human life, one composed of demons and only a modicum of respectable people. He was not evil, he was not, as a rather ignorant classmate of mine so eagerly spouted today, a "dirtbag," and he was not so different from every American in the wake of 9/11. His unfortunate experiences colored his perspective on life, just like our experience did for us. If you cannot understand that, I express my condolences.
Turning someone into an object is easy; all it takes is a certain disregard for their past and their personality. It requires a lack of empathy and understanding that is so easy to elicit when in times of duress, as we are so eager to ease the pain of any inflicted wound.
To celebrate the killing of an enemy is to condone death to those we deem as "enemies." Could this lead to a belief that the world is monochromatic, that everything is simply good and evil and that we are always on the side of righteousness? I don't know. Somehow, I'd rather not find out.
That's all.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Death of Bin Laden
I decided to interrupt my intense (/hyperbole) studying to talk about this most recent and surprising development: Osama bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world for the last 10 years, has been killed by United States operatives in Pakistan. I'd just like to say that it doesn't matter. (Read on before you decide to vilify me.)
Osama Bin Laden, contrary to popular belief, was a reasonable man. No, I do not condone terrorist attacks, but I understood Bin Laden's reasoning behind his malice towards the United States. For a bit of historical context (very brief), Bin Laden hated the United States (and, of course Israel) because of their involvement in supporting Israel in the first Lebanon War (in 1982). Nearly 18,000 Lebanese civilians were killed by Israeli forces, and the United States never chastised Israel for the massacre. Thus, during this war, in Bin Laden's eyes, the United States and Israel declared war on Islam.
Some may choose to bring up the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and how the CIA financed the Mujahideen as to the US' "friendly relations" with Bin Laden; this is an example of Sun Tzu's "enemy of my enemy is my friend" axiom. The Soviet Union was the immediate threat, and in Bin Laden's view of Sharia Law, defense of the Islamic state (in this case, Afghanistan) was of the utmost priority. Bin Laden was by no means stupid.
Of course, nearly all those in the US who have barely paid attention to news and past history will trumpet the name of the United States, brandishing flags and nationalistic pride unto every orifice of the country. I choose not to celebrate the death of anyone, even an enemy, especially an enemy made out of the policies of my own home country. It is hubris at its worst, a kind of arrogance that will ultimately be the downfall of any person, as many will feel indestructible, believing that vengeance has been enacted against a man who plotted what he believed was justified retaliation. In this hubris, we doom ourselves to a self-fulfilling prophecy: we ignore history, we ignore contexts, and instead we only choose to see ourselves as inviolable and blindingly moral. Yes, an "enemy" of the US was killed, yes, this invokes a sense of victory, but do not be so ignorant as to believe that this is the end.
Because of Bin Laden's retaliation, George Bush launched his own sort of retaliation into not one but two Islamic countries; he reinforced US support of Israel and their oppression of Palestine, furthering the image of the US as anti-Islam; he doomed thousands upon thousands of people to death, blaming all of it on terrorism rather than accepting the consequences of past actions. What would have been a just retaliation against Bin Laden after 9/11? I don't know, but certainly invading 2 countries would not be it.
Many will cheer. FOX will tout the policies of the Bush-era as the main factor contributing towards Bin Laden's death, while others will likely discuss the CIA's missions and their logistics, expeditions, etc.; none of that really matters. Bin Laden was a symbolic figure, largely given the entirety of the blame for an attack that killed 3,000 US citizens. He was a scapegoat, and I do concede the symbolic victory for the United States in this action, but a victory it is not; a death does not a victory make.
We must accept that there will always be those who do not agree with government policies towards the Middle East (largely in its affirmation of Israel's statehood), and we must accept the consequences of the actions that those policies create. It is difficult not to desire vengeance, not to desire to have a declared enemy's body hanging from a town square, not to desire to kill every single supporter of those who support our declared enemy; however, we must always realize that we may actually create our own enemy without the common knowledge of citizens, and perhaps it would be best to reflect on that possibility before engaging in bloodthirsty retribution.
I suppose that's my position on all this brouhaha. It's not popular and it's not the same chest-thumping nationalistic attitude that many will brandish in the wake of this event. I don't celebrate death. I don't celebrate vengeance. I don't celebrate hubris.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Osama Bin Laden, contrary to popular belief, was a reasonable man. No, I do not condone terrorist attacks, but I understood Bin Laden's reasoning behind his malice towards the United States. For a bit of historical context (very brief), Bin Laden hated the United States (and, of course Israel) because of their involvement in supporting Israel in the first Lebanon War (in 1982). Nearly 18,000 Lebanese civilians were killed by Israeli forces, and the United States never chastised Israel for the massacre. Thus, during this war, in Bin Laden's eyes, the United States and Israel declared war on Islam.
Some may choose to bring up the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and how the CIA financed the Mujahideen as to the US' "friendly relations" with Bin Laden; this is an example of Sun Tzu's "enemy of my enemy is my friend" axiom. The Soviet Union was the immediate threat, and in Bin Laden's view of Sharia Law, defense of the Islamic state (in this case, Afghanistan) was of the utmost priority. Bin Laden was by no means stupid.
Of course, nearly all those in the US who have barely paid attention to news and past history will trumpet the name of the United States, brandishing flags and nationalistic pride unto every orifice of the country. I choose not to celebrate the death of anyone, even an enemy, especially an enemy made out of the policies of my own home country. It is hubris at its worst, a kind of arrogance that will ultimately be the downfall of any person, as many will feel indestructible, believing that vengeance has been enacted against a man who plotted what he believed was justified retaliation. In this hubris, we doom ourselves to a self-fulfilling prophecy: we ignore history, we ignore contexts, and instead we only choose to see ourselves as inviolable and blindingly moral. Yes, an "enemy" of the US was killed, yes, this invokes a sense of victory, but do not be so ignorant as to believe that this is the end.
Because of Bin Laden's retaliation, George Bush launched his own sort of retaliation into not one but two Islamic countries; he reinforced US support of Israel and their oppression of Palestine, furthering the image of the US as anti-Islam; he doomed thousands upon thousands of people to death, blaming all of it on terrorism rather than accepting the consequences of past actions. What would have been a just retaliation against Bin Laden after 9/11? I don't know, but certainly invading 2 countries would not be it.
Many will cheer. FOX will tout the policies of the Bush-era as the main factor contributing towards Bin Laden's death, while others will likely discuss the CIA's missions and their logistics, expeditions, etc.; none of that really matters. Bin Laden was a symbolic figure, largely given the entirety of the blame for an attack that killed 3,000 US citizens. He was a scapegoat, and I do concede the symbolic victory for the United States in this action, but a victory it is not; a death does not a victory make.
We must accept that there will always be those who do not agree with government policies towards the Middle East (largely in its affirmation of Israel's statehood), and we must accept the consequences of the actions that those policies create. It is difficult not to desire vengeance, not to desire to have a declared enemy's body hanging from a town square, not to desire to kill every single supporter of those who support our declared enemy; however, we must always realize that we may actually create our own enemy without the common knowledge of citizens, and perhaps it would be best to reflect on that possibility before engaging in bloodthirsty retribution.
I suppose that's my position on all this brouhaha. It's not popular and it's not the same chest-thumping nationalistic attitude that many will brandish in the wake of this event. I don't celebrate death. I don't celebrate vengeance. I don't celebrate hubris.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Friday, April 22, 2011
Canceling Rutgersfest
This past Tuesday, Rutgers president Richard McCormick announced that he has canceled Rutgersfest for the foreseeable future. The annual concert, which has brought bands and performers such as Pitbull and Brand New, came under fire this year for 4 shootings and 11 arrests that occurred off of College Avenue campus in the late-night partying that ensued after the concert. New Brunswick police blamed the concert for attracting unsavory characters from all around and concentrating them in New Brunswick, essentially making College Avenue campus a boiling pot with no release; in essence, it was bound to explode. I find all of these excuses to be absurd.
First, I would like to quote President McCormick’s e-mail that he sent to the student body:
Many streets were congested with people and there were multiple reports of
disruptive conduct. Near the College Avenue campus there were many rowdy
student house parties, incidents of public intoxication, littering, and
vandalism, and several altercations among students and other
individuals. Most disturbing to report, four non-Rutgers people were
shot in three incidents during the course of the evening. The fact that
none of these shootings resulted in life-threatening injuries does not
diminish their violence, and I am gravely concerned about the danger to
our students and our neighbors.
That sounds like any typical Friday night (or even Thursday) at Rutgers, except without the shootings (or at least as many of them). If anyone has ever been to Rutgers on a Friday night, one could find “many rowdy student house parties, incidents of public intoxication, littering, and vandalism, and several altercations among students and other individuals.” Not only that, but people get mugged weekly while drunkenly stumbling around College Avenue. There are only 2 reasons why McCormick is actually canceling Rutgersfest: 1. It has been a terrible year for PR at Rutgers, and 2. Large pressure from the NBPD, who yearly have to deal with large, impossible crowds and large amounts of drunken disorderlies.
While I do understand the need for McCormick to feel that he has to take some sort of drastic action to counter all the negativity that has struck this school over the past 2 semesters, canceling the largest student celebration is not it. Those who were shot, did the shooting, and those who were arrested were all non-Rutgers students.
Shown: People NOT from Rutgers.
Don’t penalize all students for something that is clearly not the fault of the student body. Maybe reforming the concert for students only and having non-students pay a fee to enter would deter some, but obviously the main attraction is partying. As long as there are parties in Rutgers, people from all over are still going to come to this college and act stupidly. Unless McCormick somehow bans alcohol and turns Rutgers dryer than Dick Cheney’s internal organs, then I somehow doubt that people are going to stop coming here to have a good time.
As a reaction to the president’s decision, students have begun several Facebook events, including “Ragefest 2012″ and “Slutgersfest 2012,” among others. It’s obvious that there is not way to stop students from having their fun, so President McCormick, don’t be so strong-handed. We understand that it’s been a tough year for Rutgers; trust me, we’ve all lived through it. It’s enough to drive anyone to an extreme. Just trust me when I say that taking away our biggest privilege is not the way to rectify all problems.
First, I would like to quote President McCormick’s e-mail that he sent to the student body:
Many streets were congested with people and there were multiple reports of
disruptive conduct. Near the College Avenue campus there were many rowdy
student house parties, incidents of public intoxication, littering, and
vandalism, and several altercations among students and other
individuals. Most disturbing to report, four non-Rutgers people were
shot in three incidents during the course of the evening. The fact that
none of these shootings resulted in life-threatening injuries does not
diminish their violence, and I am gravely concerned about the danger to
our students and our neighbors.
That sounds like any typical Friday night (or even Thursday) at Rutgers, except without the shootings (or at least as many of them). If anyone has ever been to Rutgers on a Friday night, one could find “many rowdy student house parties, incidents of public intoxication, littering, and vandalism, and several altercations among students and other individuals.” Not only that, but people get mugged weekly while drunkenly stumbling around College Avenue. There are only 2 reasons why McCormick is actually canceling Rutgersfest: 1. It has been a terrible year for PR at Rutgers, and 2. Large pressure from the NBPD, who yearly have to deal with large, impossible crowds and large amounts of drunken disorderlies.
While I do understand the need for McCormick to feel that he has to take some sort of drastic action to counter all the negativity that has struck this school over the past 2 semesters, canceling the largest student celebration is not it. Those who were shot, did the shooting, and those who were arrested were all non-Rutgers students.
Shown: People NOT from Rutgers.
Don’t penalize all students for something that is clearly not the fault of the student body. Maybe reforming the concert for students only and having non-students pay a fee to enter would deter some, but obviously the main attraction is partying. As long as there are parties in Rutgers, people from all over are still going to come to this college and act stupidly. Unless McCormick somehow bans alcohol and turns Rutgers dryer than Dick Cheney’s internal organs, then I somehow doubt that people are going to stop coming here to have a good time.
As a reaction to the president’s decision, students have begun several Facebook events, including “Ragefest 2012″ and “Slutgersfest 2012,” among others. It’s obvious that there is not way to stop students from having their fun, so President McCormick, don’t be so strong-handed. We understand that it’s been a tough year for Rutgers; trust me, we’ve all lived through it. It’s enough to drive anyone to an extreme. Just trust me when I say that taking away our biggest privilege is not the way to rectify all problems.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Destiny
I think I've found my true calling in life: president. I hope that one day, I can rise through the ranks of politics and become a senator, nay, president, and lead America to a better future where cars actually fly, all energy is renewable and everyone has free health care.
Nah, just kidding. I think I'll just be homeless. I think it's easier.
DF
Nah, just kidding. I think I'll just be homeless. I think it's easier.
DF
Monday, April 4, 2011
What's a Snooki?
If you don't go to Rutgers, read the news, or hear anything about anything, then you probably haven't heard of the whole controversy surrounding Rutgers paying Snooki $32,000 to perform (whatever her kind of performance is) in front of the student body. If you don't know who Snooki is, then I applaud you and by all means, you don't have to read any further. Seriously, stop reading. It gets depressing after this paragraph.
That's a Snooki. What exactly comprises a Snooki is unknown, but after some scientific investigation, it is believed to have emerged out of a combination of Grumpy of the seven dwarfs, shame, and a particularly virulent strain of gonorrhea. She attained fame after being a whiney, strung-up harpie on a show called Jersey Shore, which may quite possibly be the absolute nadir for idiocy on television. She is about as tall as a garden gnome, and may just be related to some since she seems to be able to grow a beard at a moment's notice. Also, if she becomes infatuated with you, I would suggest arming yourself to the teeth with machetes and attack dogs. If all else fails, have a flame thrower because cutting of her head won't stop her.
Anyway, Rutgers paid her $32,000 to do a "comedy show," though the extent of her comedy would be her throwing up and having sex with the fattest person in the room after a night of excessive drinking. She likely also yelped like a chihuahua and then curled up into a ball to sleep. The largest point of contention is not just hiring her, but that she was paid more than the commencement speaker and Nobel laureate, Toni Morrison. Many are saying that it is a clear sign of the priorities at Rutgers, seeing as Snooki told students to "study hard, and party harder." Seriously.
I'm quite sure that Snooki got a 10 on the SATs even though 400 points are given for writing your name. Snooki once ate a worm because she thought that it was made of "gummies." She was 20. Snooki once confused George Washington for her grandfather because they are both old and dead. Snooki played "the troll" in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Snooki drinks out of a toilet when she's thirsty. Snooki's make-up qualifies her as a barbie doll, except she was denied to be one because she's too ugly and continually saps the souls and money of innocent men. I think you get the picture.
Either way, it's an affront to good sense and education. If you're going to get a comedian, at least get one that's funny and of good repute.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
That's a Snooki. What exactly comprises a Snooki is unknown, but after some scientific investigation, it is believed to have emerged out of a combination of Grumpy of the seven dwarfs, shame, and a particularly virulent strain of gonorrhea. She attained fame after being a whiney, strung-up harpie on a show called Jersey Shore, which may quite possibly be the absolute nadir for idiocy on television. She is about as tall as a garden gnome, and may just be related to some since she seems to be able to grow a beard at a moment's notice. Also, if she becomes infatuated with you, I would suggest arming yourself to the teeth with machetes and attack dogs. If all else fails, have a flame thrower because cutting of her head won't stop her.
Anyway, Rutgers paid her $32,000 to do a "comedy show," though the extent of her comedy would be her throwing up and having sex with the fattest person in the room after a night of excessive drinking. She likely also yelped like a chihuahua and then curled up into a ball to sleep. The largest point of contention is not just hiring her, but that she was paid more than the commencement speaker and Nobel laureate, Toni Morrison. Many are saying that it is a clear sign of the priorities at Rutgers, seeing as Snooki told students to "study hard, and party harder." Seriously.
I'm quite sure that Snooki got a 10 on the SATs even though 400 points are given for writing your name. Snooki once ate a worm because she thought that it was made of "gummies." She was 20. Snooki once confused George Washington for her grandfather because they are both old and dead. Snooki played "the troll" in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Snooki drinks out of a toilet when she's thirsty. Snooki's make-up qualifies her as a barbie doll, except she was denied to be one because she's too ugly and continually saps the souls and money of innocent men. I think you get the picture.
Either way, it's an affront to good sense and education. If you're going to get a comedian, at least get one that's funny and of good repute.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Sunday, March 27, 2011
In Harmony
The Beatles, Queen, The Beach Boys, The Mamas and the Papas, and Fleetwood Mac (and possibly Mumford and Sons, if they keep up their good music). These are the bands that I have heard that have the best vocal harmonies, in no particular order. You can argue with me if you want, but you'd be wrong since I certainly haven't heard anything better. Listen to these and try to disagree.
In this, George, Paul, and John harmonize beautifully with either John or George (can't tell, though it's likely John) taking the falsetto and doing it beautifully. Each one of them takes an octave to sing and in beautiful fashion.
While you may have been expecting Bohemian Rhapsody (and I wouldn't blame you), I enjoy the fact that the background chorus sings different lines concurrently to what Freddy Mercury is singing as the lead vocalist. One of the greatest bands with vocal harmonies, hands down.
The Beach Boys were synonymous with great vocals in their time, especially since most of the sounds in their music are simply from one (or two) background guitars and their vocals.
The Mamas and the Papas were the quintessential example in a band utilizing their vocal harmonies to achieve fame.
Fleetwood Mac knew how to mix male and female vocals well, much like The Mamas and the Papas, though Fleetwood Mac relied more on an entire band than their vocal harmonies.
They have great potential.
That's all for now.
DF
As always, click this or be subject to the torture of incessant tickling by one of Santa's elves. I can make that happen.
In this, George, Paul, and John harmonize beautifully with either John or George (can't tell, though it's likely John) taking the falsetto and doing it beautifully. Each one of them takes an octave to sing and in beautiful fashion.
While you may have been expecting Bohemian Rhapsody (and I wouldn't blame you), I enjoy the fact that the background chorus sings different lines concurrently to what Freddy Mercury is singing as the lead vocalist. One of the greatest bands with vocal harmonies, hands down.
The Beach Boys were synonymous with great vocals in their time, especially since most of the sounds in their music are simply from one (or two) background guitars and their vocals.
The Mamas and the Papas were the quintessential example in a band utilizing their vocal harmonies to achieve fame.
Fleetwood Mac knew how to mix male and female vocals well, much like The Mamas and the Papas, though Fleetwood Mac relied more on an entire band than their vocal harmonies.
They have great potential.
That's all for now.
DF
As always, click this or be subject to the torture of incessant tickling by one of Santa's elves. I can make that happen.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Intervention in Libya: The Line
The UN Security Council last week approved the institution of a no-fly zone over Libya in order to “protect civilians” from Colonel Qaddafi’s merciless force of mercenaries. The United States, England, and France, along with members of the Arab League, have offered to lend planes and warships to uphold the no-fly zone. President Barack Obama has stated that the United States will soon take a back seat in the operation, eventually ceding responsibility to either NATO or the European nations, but many have criticized him for the use of force.
Much of the criticism comes from President Obama’s deployment of warships into the Mediterranean in order to comply with the Security Council resolution, as many state that the president does not have the authority to launch strikes without congressional approval. The famous War Powers Resolution, passed under Nixon, states that the President can deploy forces only with approval from congress or if the United States is under direct attack. As the president did not receive approval from congress, the question is whether or not the president overstepped his bounds.
While it is not within presidential powers to deploy forces without congressional approval, the Constitution does not have any provisions mentioning forces under international treatise or an international organization, such as NATO or the UN. The document was originally written to prevent the eventuality of a monarch or a dominating house, such as congress, which is why military powers are divided among the two branches. The document does not lend any credence to international organizations or coalition militaries, which is why, in a case such as this, the Constitution may have to be circumvented.
I am not saying to completely disregard the Constitution; there is no slippery slope here. We must accept the limits and faults of the Constitution and be willing to step into a world where international cooperation is becoming a fact rather than a hypothetical action. If we cannot cooperate willingly and amiably with the world, we set a poor example as the self-proclaimed world leaders. What needs to be done in Libya will be done, and after the necessary amount of time, strategic forces will move under an allied command. There will be no ground troops committed, no American armor fighting Libyan armor, no American soldiers teaching Libyan rebels how to march, nothing; there will be the enforcement of a no-fly zone, and that is it. Those with the delusion of another formal (or informal) war should recognize that this situation, in all of its minute details, is infinitely different.
Much of the criticism comes from President Obama’s deployment of warships into the Mediterranean in order to comply with the Security Council resolution, as many state that the president does not have the authority to launch strikes without congressional approval. The famous War Powers Resolution, passed under Nixon, states that the President can deploy forces only with approval from congress or if the United States is under direct attack. As the president did not receive approval from congress, the question is whether or not the president overstepped his bounds.
While it is not within presidential powers to deploy forces without congressional approval, the Constitution does not have any provisions mentioning forces under international treatise or an international organization, such as NATO or the UN. The document was originally written to prevent the eventuality of a monarch or a dominating house, such as congress, which is why military powers are divided among the two branches. The document does not lend any credence to international organizations or coalition militaries, which is why, in a case such as this, the Constitution may have to be circumvented.
I am not saying to completely disregard the Constitution; there is no slippery slope here. We must accept the limits and faults of the Constitution and be willing to step into a world where international cooperation is becoming a fact rather than a hypothetical action. If we cannot cooperate willingly and amiably with the world, we set a poor example as the self-proclaimed world leaders. What needs to be done in Libya will be done, and after the necessary amount of time, strategic forces will move under an allied command. There will be no ground troops committed, no American armor fighting Libyan armor, no American soldiers teaching Libyan rebels how to march, nothing; there will be the enforcement of a no-fly zone, and that is it. Those with the delusion of another formal (or informal) war should recognize that this situation, in all of its minute details, is infinitely different.
Monday, March 14, 2011
A Turn for the Worse
Two of the largest news stories in the world have taken a turn for the worse:
First, in Japan, as everyone is probably well aware of already, the death toll continues to rise and the threat of a nuclear meltdown seems to become more likely as each day passes. Cities have been swept into the ocean, and the death toll is believed to be more than 10,000, at the least. People have gone for days without clean water, food, heat, etc. If you can, please donate to the Red Cross, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, etc.
Second, in Libya, pro-Gaddafi forces are striking at the rebels with superior air and naval power as a rebel victory continually seems to be slipping out of reach. Debates have been raging as to whether or not to impose a no-fly zone, help with foreign troops, etc., though there has been little action by the international community. The Arab League has asked NATO and the Group of Eight to impose a no-fly zone, though Turkey (NATO) and Russia and China (G8) do not support the notion. It is a tricky situation.
What do I think about Libya? The rebels are clearly outgunned, as they do not have (to my knowledge) any naval or air capabilities, as well as a small, if not negligible amount of artillery. They are being pushed back east and will likely be forced to flee the country if Gaddafi's forces march to the border with Egypt. In my opinion, the US and other countries should, at least, declare recognition of the rebel's transitional government as the authority of Libya, and thus open trade relations with them, selling arms at low prices. That's what I would do, at least.
Aside from international matters, I'm on spring break. Hooray for a week spent in my boxers.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
First, in Japan, as everyone is probably well aware of already, the death toll continues to rise and the threat of a nuclear meltdown seems to become more likely as each day passes. Cities have been swept into the ocean, and the death toll is believed to be more than 10,000, at the least. People have gone for days without clean water, food, heat, etc. If you can, please donate to the Red Cross, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, etc.
Second, in Libya, pro-Gaddafi forces are striking at the rebels with superior air and naval power as a rebel victory continually seems to be slipping out of reach. Debates have been raging as to whether or not to impose a no-fly zone, help with foreign troops, etc., though there has been little action by the international community. The Arab League has asked NATO and the Group of Eight to impose a no-fly zone, though Turkey (NATO) and Russia and China (G8) do not support the notion. It is a tricky situation.
What do I think about Libya? The rebels are clearly outgunned, as they do not have (to my knowledge) any naval or air capabilities, as well as a small, if not negligible amount of artillery. They are being pushed back east and will likely be forced to flee the country if Gaddafi's forces march to the border with Egypt. In my opinion, the US and other countries should, at least, declare recognition of the rebel's transitional government as the authority of Libya, and thus open trade relations with them, selling arms at low prices. That's what I would do, at least.
Aside from international matters, I'm on spring break. Hooray for a week spent in my boxers.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Saturday, March 5, 2011
A Current
The US media has seemingly set its news stories into a constant cycle of reporting on the civil war in Libya, the budget crisis, Charlie Sheen, and even a bunch of Christians proclaiming the end of the world is near; what I would like to focus on is journalistic integrity.
Journalistic integrity, as I see it, is the duty of every professional journalist to report a story objectively and without inserting their own bias; if there must be an opinion in a story, then there also must be a valid counter-opinion to balance the substance of the story. This definition immediately negates the Sean Hannitys and the Glenn Becks of the world, as they have been known to present arguments with both no basis in fact or logic.
Journalism and journalism media in general has been regarded as the fourth branch of the government, in that journalism media is supposed to provide another check on the government by making it accountable to the populace. Ideally, all (or most) people would read or hear the news, make a valid judgment and vote/contact their representatives based on that judgment in order to better participate in the democratic process.
Everyone and their mother knows that this is far from the truth. Unfortunately, news media is a product owned by corporations (with the exception of public news such as NPR), and is made to be sold. If a story, such as Charlie Sheen's antics, is selling, you focus more on Charlie Sheen then, say, the most conservative members of congress desiring to cut large percentages of planned parenthood and education from the budget. Thus, viewership/readership goes up, and due to that, increased revenue from advertisers desiring to display their product to the average consumer.
Regardless of this desire to increase revenue, journalists should still look to present stories in, as Fox News purports to do, a fair and balanced manner. Unfortunately, there is no Hippocratic oath of journalism for me to call upon when demanding that all journalists remain loyal to the distribution of truth rather than truth as they see it. There is only the integrity of the field and the tradition of journalists such as Edward R. Murrow to guide every prodigal journalist along the journey; unfortunately, this does not count for much anymore. For example, Dan Rather, one of the more respected journalists today, did not report on the fallacy of the buildup to the Iraq War; instead, he touted his American pride by continually reporting on American firepower and the resoluteness of soldiers to fight. As a journalist, he failed the American people.
Increasingly, journalists are being replaced by pundits for creating opinions in people, and the result is disheartening, to say the least. A pundit's opinion, however skewered and factually incorrect, is accepted willingly simply because the pundit's beliefs coincide with the viewer's.
Is the field salvageable? Of course; nothing is ever completely lost. As of right now, though, it will take a lot of work to recover.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Don't forget to click here!
EDIT------
Apparently, there is a journalistic code of ethics. Just goes to show that I should take a journalism class in college. Even so, that makes it that much sadder.
Journalistic integrity, as I see it, is the duty of every professional journalist to report a story objectively and without inserting their own bias; if there must be an opinion in a story, then there also must be a valid counter-opinion to balance the substance of the story. This definition immediately negates the Sean Hannitys and the Glenn Becks of the world, as they have been known to present arguments with both no basis in fact or logic.
Journalism and journalism media in general has been regarded as the fourth branch of the government, in that journalism media is supposed to provide another check on the government by making it accountable to the populace. Ideally, all (or most) people would read or hear the news, make a valid judgment and vote/contact their representatives based on that judgment in order to better participate in the democratic process.
Everyone and their mother knows that this is far from the truth. Unfortunately, news media is a product owned by corporations (with the exception of public news such as NPR), and is made to be sold. If a story, such as Charlie Sheen's antics, is selling, you focus more on Charlie Sheen then, say, the most conservative members of congress desiring to cut large percentages of planned parenthood and education from the budget. Thus, viewership/readership goes up, and due to that, increased revenue from advertisers desiring to display their product to the average consumer.
Regardless of this desire to increase revenue, journalists should still look to present stories in, as Fox News purports to do, a fair and balanced manner. Unfortunately, there is no Hippocratic oath of journalism for me to call upon when demanding that all journalists remain loyal to the distribution of truth rather than truth as they see it. There is only the integrity of the field and the tradition of journalists such as Edward R. Murrow to guide every prodigal journalist along the journey; unfortunately, this does not count for much anymore. For example, Dan Rather, one of the more respected journalists today, did not report on the fallacy of the buildup to the Iraq War; instead, he touted his American pride by continually reporting on American firepower and the resoluteness of soldiers to fight. As a journalist, he failed the American people.
Increasingly, journalists are being replaced by pundits for creating opinions in people, and the result is disheartening, to say the least. A pundit's opinion, however skewered and factually incorrect, is accepted willingly simply because the pundit's beliefs coincide with the viewer's.
Is the field salvageable? Of course; nothing is ever completely lost. As of right now, though, it will take a lot of work to recover.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Don't forget to click here!
EDIT------
Apparently, there is a journalistic code of ethics. Just goes to show that I should take a journalism class in college. Even so, that makes it that much sadder.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Dumb de dumb dumb
Well, my life seems to have hit a jetstream and accelerated at warp speed. Worrying about internships, GRE, senior thesis, grad school, jobs, and my future in general is beginning to smack me in the face like a giant GRE practice book. I've been falling behind in my reading, the news, and my life in general. I guess that's inevitable anyway.
If you want my thoughts on Libya, just click here.
If you want to see good stuff, click here.
I'm applying for an internship at CBS news, either in DC or in NY. Here's hoping that I can get it.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
If you want my thoughts on Libya, just click here.
If you want to see good stuff, click here.
I'm applying for an internship at CBS news, either in DC or in NY. Here's hoping that I can get it.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Video: Bahrain's army killing civilians
Warning: Both videos are graphic. One is longer, the other is a 30 second clip.
This is a doctor in contact with Al Jazeera.
This is a doctor in contact with Al Jazeera.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Democratization
As everyone probably knows by now, people's movements have deposed the former governments in Tunisia and Egypt, all by the power of the people, as it were. It seems that a domino effect has been set into motion, as there are now movements in Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and Iran (again). In these movements, however, the presiding government has not been reluctant to display its force.
In Bahrain, for example, 20,000 peaceful protesters were beaten by police indiscriminately on the order of the government. Women and children, doctors, and innocent people in general were chased down and beaten by government forces.
In Iran, peaceful marches were dispersed immediately by the Revolutionary Guard in an apparent act of hypocrisy by the Ayatollah who praised the Egyptian people for their work in Egypt (just for clarification: the Ayatollah claimed that the movement was largely Shiite, which Iran predominantly is).
So, is a people's democratic movement possible in these countries where there is no reluctance to use force on their people? It seems that the movements in these countries may take to two extremes (if they continue): 1. The people become indefatigable and relentless in their pursuit of revolution, but the government continues to beat them mercilessly; eventually, either the people end their movement or the police decide to cease their atrocities and side with the people; 2. The police forces become increasingly more violent, leading to a violent rebuke by the people in an effort to secure a revolution by guerrilla warfare. The success of this depends largely on the dedication of the people.
What is occurring now is truly an astonishing show of embracing the concept of a government without a monarch. That being said, I do concede that there have been benevolent dictators, but the overwhelming majority have been thieves, scoundrels, selfish, greedy, etc. For example, the Mubarak family took advantage of the Egyptian economy to make millions of dollars off of the private sector (Gamal Mubarak, mostly).
I think that this movement has more strength than the Iranian Green Movement did after the contested elections. I think that the youth in these countries can actually achieve their goals. They're motivated, they're connected, and they have concrete plans. Here's hoping that the youth can change the world.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. You should check this out. It's quite intense.
In Bahrain, for example, 20,000 peaceful protesters were beaten by police indiscriminately on the order of the government. Women and children, doctors, and innocent people in general were chased down and beaten by government forces.
In Iran, peaceful marches were dispersed immediately by the Revolutionary Guard in an apparent act of hypocrisy by the Ayatollah who praised the Egyptian people for their work in Egypt (just for clarification: the Ayatollah claimed that the movement was largely Shiite, which Iran predominantly is).
So, is a people's democratic movement possible in these countries where there is no reluctance to use force on their people? It seems that the movements in these countries may take to two extremes (if they continue): 1. The people become indefatigable and relentless in their pursuit of revolution, but the government continues to beat them mercilessly; eventually, either the people end their movement or the police decide to cease their atrocities and side with the people; 2. The police forces become increasingly more violent, leading to a violent rebuke by the people in an effort to secure a revolution by guerrilla warfare. The success of this depends largely on the dedication of the people.
What is occurring now is truly an astonishing show of embracing the concept of a government without a monarch. That being said, I do concede that there have been benevolent dictators, but the overwhelming majority have been thieves, scoundrels, selfish, greedy, etc. For example, the Mubarak family took advantage of the Egyptian economy to make millions of dollars off of the private sector (Gamal Mubarak, mostly).
I think that this movement has more strength than the Iranian Green Movement did after the contested elections. I think that the youth in these countries can actually achieve their goals. They're motivated, they're connected, and they have concrete plans. Here's hoping that the youth can change the world.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. You should check this out. It's quite intense.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Mmm...Capitalism
President Obama recently spoke in front of the Chamber of Commerce, a notably conservative institution, to many large business leaders, urging them to begin spending their saved money in order to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Many business moguls have a view of the Obama administration as anti-business due to the new health care law and many regulations that businesses say "quell capitalism." President Obama, in his speech, promised to reform the tax code and remove many superfluous regulations.
While I do agree that corporations should be using their money to create jobs, such as those in research and development, manufacturing, etc., I somehow doubt that they will change their business practices drastically. One must always remember that a business does not have a nation's best interest as its own; the best interest of a business is always to have increasing revenue. Why do many manufacturing and low-expertise jobs go overseas? There is less regulation on business and corporations can traditionally pay the workers less, thus ensuring a higher profit margin. To think that a corporation will change its practices without first groveling at its knees and acceding to every demand is naive.
Strategically, the president made a good political move by speaking at a venue that has called his health care law "anti-capitalistic." By going to the Chamber of Commerce, he showed that he is willing to work with businesses to better improve relations between business and government. This may, however, be taken by business as a sign of weakness on the part of Obama, lending to a theory that business has the US in a vice grip.
So, how far does Obama go when attempting to compromise with business? Does he remove environmental regulations? Does he lower the tax rate for businesses? Does he offer incentives to business to create jobs in the US? We shall see, though nothing is certain now with a divided government, and the president knows that.
The word "compromise" can be construed 1 of 2 ways: a willingness to reach an undisputed conclusion by giving up and accepting certain options, or as an abandonment, an extrication of what composed a certain object. The definition that Obama chooses in the coming year and a half may just be left up to history.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Visit here for free financial tips!*
*Note: May or may not be financial tips.
While I do agree that corporations should be using their money to create jobs, such as those in research and development, manufacturing, etc., I somehow doubt that they will change their business practices drastically. One must always remember that a business does not have a nation's best interest as its own; the best interest of a business is always to have increasing revenue. Why do many manufacturing and low-expertise jobs go overseas? There is less regulation on business and corporations can traditionally pay the workers less, thus ensuring a higher profit margin. To think that a corporation will change its practices without first groveling at its knees and acceding to every demand is naive.
Strategically, the president made a good political move by speaking at a venue that has called his health care law "anti-capitalistic." By going to the Chamber of Commerce, he showed that he is willing to work with businesses to better improve relations between business and government. This may, however, be taken by business as a sign of weakness on the part of Obama, lending to a theory that business has the US in a vice grip.
So, how far does Obama go when attempting to compromise with business? Does he remove environmental regulations? Does he lower the tax rate for businesses? Does he offer incentives to business to create jobs in the US? We shall see, though nothing is certain now with a divided government, and the president knows that.
The word "compromise" can be construed 1 of 2 ways: a willingness to reach an undisputed conclusion by giving up and accepting certain options, or as an abandonment, an extrication of what composed a certain object. The definition that Obama chooses in the coming year and a half may just be left up to history.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Visit here for free financial tips!*
*Note: May or may not be financial tips.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Well, I've Been Afraid of Changes...
Sorry it's been a while, but I've been busy with Model UN stuff and other stuff, on top of some other car stuff and sleeping.
It's been a tumultuous few months in the Middle East and Northern Africa. First, it started in Tunisia when a man upset over the lack of economic stability set himself on fire. That set off several other self-immolations, and led to Tunisian President Ben Ali fleeing the country with the Prime Minister taking over as interim president. Now, in Egypt, massive protests are taking place to oust President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president for over 30 years, from power. Mubarak has stated that he will step down in September, but that is not soon enough for the massive protesters.
Will this trend continue? Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and Iran, amongst other countries, are beginning to see what looks like talks of the same type of revolution that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia. Both populations are largely composed of people under 30, which means that they are more likely to organize via social networking sites and through other new age communications mediums. The same is true for other strictly Muslim countries, where much of the population was born after the current rulers took power. Could this be the beginning of a trend of democratization of the Middle East?
Possibly. What could also happen is a turn towards stricter following of Islam, such as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (though they are non-violent and have expressed that they will not field a political candidate for president). It all depends on who takes power during the current vacuum.
And now, to catch up on school work.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here for free stuff!
It's been a tumultuous few months in the Middle East and Northern Africa. First, it started in Tunisia when a man upset over the lack of economic stability set himself on fire. That set off several other self-immolations, and led to Tunisian President Ben Ali fleeing the country with the Prime Minister taking over as interim president. Now, in Egypt, massive protests are taking place to oust President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president for over 30 years, from power. Mubarak has stated that he will step down in September, but that is not soon enough for the massive protesters.
Will this trend continue? Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and Iran, amongst other countries, are beginning to see what looks like talks of the same type of revolution that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia. Both populations are largely composed of people under 30, which means that they are more likely to organize via social networking sites and through other new age communications mediums. The same is true for other strictly Muslim countries, where much of the population was born after the current rulers took power. Could this be the beginning of a trend of democratization of the Middle East?
Possibly. What could also happen is a turn towards stricter following of Islam, such as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (though they are non-violent and have expressed that they will not field a political candidate for president). It all depends on who takes power during the current vacuum.
And now, to catch up on school work.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here for free stuff!
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
College Wars: Return of the Me
Well, my second semester of my junior year has started. As usual, I feel unsettled. That may be me just adjusting back to college life, or it could be me adjusting back to college food; either way, it's not comfortable.
I plan on doing several things this semester:
1. Actually reading my assignments.
2. Sleeping more.
3. Being social.
4. Giving a damn.
5. Not doing any of the above.
Either way, I win.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here because I told you so. Say I sent you; you get 20% off.
I plan on doing several things this semester:
1. Actually reading my assignments.
2. Sleeping more.
3. Being social.
4. Giving a damn.
5. Not doing any of the above.
Either way, I win.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here because I told you so. Say I sent you; you get 20% off.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Remonstration of a Tragedy
As almost everyone in the United States and beyond likely knows, Congressional Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot by Jared Loughner during a public event in Tuscon, Arizona. Much has been made of this incident, as liberal and conservative pundits have placed blame on each other for the occurrence. Conservative pundits have portrayed Loughner as a liberal tool, and Liberal pundits have painted him as a man influenced by rhetoric spouted by those such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. I won't blame either side for the tragedy.
I will blame both sides, however, for politicizing an event that should not be politicized. I will blame them both for acting in such a way to incite the tempers of both reasonable and unreasonable people alike.
Some may say that America has entered an age of unreasonable and irresponsible politics, where the effort to gain and control power, whether it is government power or media power, has become more important than ensuring quality of life or stable relations with other countries. I do agree with that to some extent, though much of what we see and hear as major opinions usually only constitutes a small, extreme minority. It is the failure of our news system that allows for these extreme positions to garner any kind of attention, as news is (and has become) a profit-driven enterprise, where ratings are what matters rather than quality. If a pundit's rhetoric is acerbic and sure to insult others, run it- viewership will increase. If a story, such as if a Florida pastor (whose congregation was constituted of a minuscule amount of people) threatens to burn a Qu'ran to protest Islam even though his church represents the extreme fringe of all civilized debate, run it- not only that, over-analyze it.
American politics, to some or many, has seemingly become a competition in superior morals, whereby one side continually tries to display the faults of the other. I don't disagree.
I usually have to stop myself from writing things such as this, as it makes me question why the hell I'm majoring in political science. It's a strange feeling, hating something so passionately that will, more likely than not, be an inevitable career choice.
So, I suppose my main message here is that focus of the tragedy should be on the man himself rather than any larger influence, unless it is found to be the case. I decided to watch some of Loughner's videos on Youtube, and honestly, they were incoherent and made very little sense. His grammar is terrible and his reasoning is logically flawed, so more likely than not, the man is to blame.
Members of both parties are culpable for so much else, but on this issue, let's all agree that no one is to blame but Loughner.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
I will blame both sides, however, for politicizing an event that should not be politicized. I will blame them both for acting in such a way to incite the tempers of both reasonable and unreasonable people alike.
Some may say that America has entered an age of unreasonable and irresponsible politics, where the effort to gain and control power, whether it is government power or media power, has become more important than ensuring quality of life or stable relations with other countries. I do agree with that to some extent, though much of what we see and hear as major opinions usually only constitutes a small, extreme minority. It is the failure of our news system that allows for these extreme positions to garner any kind of attention, as news is (and has become) a profit-driven enterprise, where ratings are what matters rather than quality. If a pundit's rhetoric is acerbic and sure to insult others, run it- viewership will increase. If a story, such as if a Florida pastor (whose congregation was constituted of a minuscule amount of people) threatens to burn a Qu'ran to protest Islam even though his church represents the extreme fringe of all civilized debate, run it- not only that, over-analyze it.
American politics, to some or many, has seemingly become a competition in superior morals, whereby one side continually tries to display the faults of the other. I don't disagree.
I usually have to stop myself from writing things such as this, as it makes me question why the hell I'm majoring in political science. It's a strange feeling, hating something so passionately that will, more likely than not, be an inevitable career choice.
So, I suppose my main message here is that focus of the tragedy should be on the man himself rather than any larger influence, unless it is found to be the case. I decided to watch some of Loughner's videos on Youtube, and honestly, they were incoherent and made very little sense. His grammar is terrible and his reasoning is logically flawed, so more likely than not, the man is to blame.
Members of both parties are culpable for so much else, but on this issue, let's all agree that no one is to blame but Loughner.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
A Question of Culpability
Recently, the parents of deceased Rutgers student Tyler Clementi announced that they have preserved the right to sue Rutgers over their negligence to act on his behalf in the events leading to his tragic suicide. Mr. Clementi jumped off of the George Washington Bridge in late September after his roommate Dharun Ravi and classmate Molly Wei broadcast his sexual encounter with another man over the internet. While many would believe that the family is simply trying to take advantage of the sympathetic feelings towards the parents, it would be wise to mull over the finer details of the case and see whether or not the university was truly at fault.
Firstly, Mr. Clementi did speak to an Resident Assistant about his roommate’s voyeurism. He also requested a room change. Unfortunately, two days later (I believe), he committed suicide.
Secondly, Mr. Clementi spoke to two “higher ups” (as he put it) about his roommate’s indecency. Who they are is not known (or at least not well known), though their actions could have drastic implications.
If Rutgers official staff did not act within the window between Mr. Clementi’s first report and his suicide, then the parents have the right to claim gross negligence on the part of the university for, 1: Not upholding their privacy guidelines, and 2: Not acting in an expedited fashion to rectify the problem.
The first incident should have been the stopping point, as there was enough evidence against Mr. Ravi to act on Mr. Clementi’s allegations of invasion of privacy. Mr. Ravi posted on his Twitter feed “Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into Molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.” Two days later, Mr. Ravi posted again: “Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it’s happening again.” Quotes from www.dailymail.co.uk
The ultimate verdict, however, rests with the Resident Assistant and the “higher ups” in question, because if they failed to act in any way, Rutgers will be held accountable for their lack of action. If the evidence surrounding them shows that no tangible action was taken, either in the form of a formal action (through Rutgers bureaucracy) or direct (the RA speaking directly to Mr. Ravi and admonishing him), then the family has every right to sue Rutgers. And, if that is the case, I support the Clementi family wholeheartedly.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Firstly, Mr. Clementi did speak to an Resident Assistant about his roommate’s voyeurism. He also requested a room change. Unfortunately, two days later (I believe), he committed suicide.
Secondly, Mr. Clementi spoke to two “higher ups” (as he put it) about his roommate’s indecency. Who they are is not known (or at least not well known), though their actions could have drastic implications.
If Rutgers official staff did not act within the window between Mr. Clementi’s first report and his suicide, then the parents have the right to claim gross negligence on the part of the university for, 1: Not upholding their privacy guidelines, and 2: Not acting in an expedited fashion to rectify the problem.
The first incident should have been the stopping point, as there was enough evidence against Mr. Ravi to act on Mr. Clementi’s allegations of invasion of privacy. Mr. Ravi posted on his Twitter feed “Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into Molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.” Two days later, Mr. Ravi posted again: “Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it’s happening again.” Quotes from www.dailymail.co.uk
The ultimate verdict, however, rests with the Resident Assistant and the “higher ups” in question, because if they failed to act in any way, Rutgers will be held accountable for their lack of action. If the evidence surrounding them shows that no tangible action was taken, either in the form of a formal action (through Rutgers bureaucracy) or direct (the RA speaking directly to Mr. Ravi and admonishing him), then the family has every right to sue Rutgers. And, if that is the case, I support the Clementi family wholeheartedly.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)