Rant.

Several notable things happened this past week: Roger Clemens was cleared of perjury charges, and I got paid, finally.

Why should I write about Roger Clemens? Exactly. What the hell should I give a damn about him lying to Congress? Hell, why should he or anyone have to testify in front of Congress about steroid use in baseball?
The United States Congress is the lawmaking body of the country. What business they have in investigating steroid use in the MLB is beyond me. They might argue that because the MLB is related to interstate commerce, and thus under the purview of the Congress, but, I can't stress this enough, it has no bearing whatsoever on the functioning of this country. None. Too much time and money has been wasted on the circus-like hearings of former MLB players while there are so many other national issues to be dealt with. That being said, how long have these investigations been going on? I remember this going back to 2006 or so, though I'm sure it may have come up before then. How come the damn bankers who traded in derivatives haven't been arrested and tried? How come Dick Cheney never had to face major scrutiny because of his private security force or his unwillingness to cooperate with multiple investigations of the executive branch because he claimed "legislative exemption?"
Pitiful. Pardon my French, but fucking pitiful. A country that spends so much focus on a non-issue is disheartening and deserves scorn.

Now, onto a lighter issue, my recent paycheck: A quarter of my money was taken for taxes. A quarter. Out of a minimum wage salary. This is absurd. Minimum wage is not a survivable wage, especially when it is taxed. If Republicans are so big on tax cuts, then cut taxes for those who actually need the damn money rather than people who make over $500K.

There, rant is done.

Das Flüg

Regressive Taxation

I'm all for taxation. No, seriously, if a portion of my money goes towards social services that are both necessary and that I can use later in life, why not support taxation? Sure, there are those people who demand all their money, "they earned it," but without taxation, I'd hesitate to think about what would happen if your house were on fire.

That being said, some taxation is ridiculous, namely a tax on people who earn only minimum wage. Minimum wage, on average, nets a person only ~$15,000 per year. That is, for someone who only goes through the minimal amount of shopping, barely enough to survive. What I find appalling, however, is that some people make that in a month and don't pay taxes at all.

I make minimum wage at my part-time job. Unfortunately, it's not a great job that gives me many hours (even though I would love some more), so I've applied to a second job that will probably also pay me minimum wage if I am hired. I need all the money I can get, seeing as I will be in London this October, studying for my Master's degree. Sadly, I am not on track to make much at all.

What is the point of taking money out of the hands of people who need it the most? I realize that many taxes for lower income-earners are mandated at the state level, but still, it is quite unreasonable to tax those who rely on every single cent. I'd call it class warfare, but it seems that it's only class warfare if people with too much money are taxed.

That's my two cents, now give it back to me since I need to save my money for later.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Nowhere Man

If you were hit in the head with a brick and spent the last year in a coma, then you'd have a viable reason as to why you haven't heard anything about the Arab Spring. As of right now, the Arab Spring, as a whole movement, is probably the largest pro-democracy movement the world has ever seen. As of right now, the formerly dictatorial regimes in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya have all fallen, whether it was through public pressure or rebel insurgency. Also as of right now, many countries still face huge public opposition, notably Syria, Lebanon, and Bahrain.

I suppose the question I want to ask is, does NATO's intervention in Libya to help overthrow Moammar Ghaddafi create a precedent?

To put it in more eloquent terms, because of the supposed mission in Libya where NATO promised to arm and defend civilians with the express purpose of ending the human rights abuses in Libya, is it now incumbent upon NATO to intervene in other countries in the middle of their Arab Spring uprising?

(Unfortunately, the 2nd half of this did not save, so I'll try to reconstruct what I wrote from memory.)

In my opinion, yes, NATO has the obligation of intervention in the Arab Spring, especially in cases where there are gross human rights violations. In Syria right now, there have been multiple cases reported of the Syrian army massacring entire villages, shelling towns with mortars, entering houses and gunning down families, etc.

So, what is the difference between Libya and Syria? What do they have in common?

• A dictator? [Yes.]
• A rebel army? [Yup.]
• Human rights violations? [Definitely.]
• International condemnation? [As always.]
  
• A large oil cache? [Uh huh.]

So what is the difference between then and now? Elections. The US is the principle actor in NATO, typically authorizing and overseeing its actions. Obama knows that he has lost a good share of his support over the past 4 years due to his inability to close Guantanamo Bay, his support of nuclear energy, bailouts, etc. He also knows that if he takes action against Syria, the Republicans, to the malaise and exasperation of the non-FOX viewers, will lambaste him for "wasting tax dollars" or some other reason. (I'm quite sure that if a Republican were in office and were to take action against Syria, they would justify it as "ensuring democracy" or whatnot. Partisanship is tiresome.)

If I were President Obama, I would have done away with his ill-advised attempts at partisanship years ago and acted like the man who had so much promise so long ago and who was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for not being George Bush. The Republicans will berate you no matter what. And, you know what, you're the president; you have access to the greatest resources in the world. Use them. Sway the American people.

Since Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been intransigent and unwilling to yield, it falls upon the international community to act on behalf of the people being massacred, especially NATO, since there is now the idea that the large democratic countries will support democratic movements.

So, NATO should at least show the same support for the Syrian rebels that they showed for the Libyan ones, just to show that for once, election-time doesn't predominate above what should be done.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg