2012

One of the most anticipated and contentious presidential elections of this new century is coming up in 2012. President Obama is facing a highly belligerent and ambitious conservative wing of the Republican party which has seemingly become the voice of the new right. With this new right comes the prospect of the highly unpredictable variable of who will represent the Republican party in the 2012 election; namely, Sarah Palin. While many are afraid of her candidacy, members of the Democratic party should pray for her to declare her intentions of running for president.
Why? Harking back to the 2008 president election where she was the Republican nominee for vice president, she was revealed to be less than knowledgeable in all fields pertaining to political discourse, including Constitutional law, international relations, domestic policy, social issues, et al. She demonstrated many of these qualities in her public appearances, such as in the vice presidential debate where she continually did what only could be described as a "folksy method of flirtation" with the cameraman in which she continually winked at the camera.


She also demonstrated her lack of political knowledge in her much revered interview with Katie Couric, where she stated that her foreign policy experience was based on living in a state with a land border with Canada and being in close proximity to Russia.


She has alienated moderate Republicans by continually denigrating them during the 2010 midterms, where she advocated for the election of all far-right Tea Party conservatives. She has continually demonstrated her affection for anti-intellectual dogma, often criticizing President Obama for not being "enough of a man" and actually attacking him for being a constitutional law professor.



Though many believe that Republicans are simply deadbeat rednecks who pray to guns and the rich, there is a good contingent of rational Republicans who realize that Sarah Palin is the bane of all reasonable politics. Democrats should hope that she becomes the presidential nominee, because several things will happen: 1. She will continually demonstrate her ineptitude in foreign affairs during her public appearances; 2. She will alienate moderate Republicans and independents with her extreme conservative views; 3. She will alienate her most loyal demographic of middle-aged women with her oscillating views on social issues.

Even if she runs independently from the Republican party, she will divide the Republican vote, ensuring a victory for the Democratic party. On the extremely rare chance that she does win, however, I'm moving to England.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Novus Orsa

"New beginnings."

I am not a melodramatic person, as I hoped to show in my previous post. It is something that I have always tried to avoid.

I bring up the Latin phrase "Novus Orsa" because I will soon begin my second year of college. It seems like almost a lifetime has passed since my first year. So much has changed, even though the time that has passed is comparatively short. I will be turning 20 this school year, meaning the end of my childhood and teenage years. It is quite daunting to know that I will no longer have the teen moniker to rely on. Childhood was extraordinarily simple when compared to my life today. I suppose, however, that if we continually cling to childhood, we never mature. On the other hand, if we let our pasts go, we become somewhat detached from that which makes us whole. I suppose that striking the right balance between the two will be a necessary quest to undertake.

Now, I feel that I must talk about something that I have tried to avoid talking about: politics. Specifically, I would like to talk about the current health care debate raging in the United States. This is something that has become completely out of control. Facts have been skewered, belligerents lauded, fear mongered. There are many who are making judgments based on faulty knowledge. Sadly enough, Sarah Palin may be the epicenter for some of this misconception.

Sarah Palin, several weeks ago, posted a note on her facebook account stating (in her usual poorly-written English) that "my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." Unfortunately, too many people now believe that "death panels" are, in fact, real and are protesting solely on that "fact." Others protest because they believe that this is "socialized medical care," and that socialized medical care will lead to something similar to the former Soviet Union. There are many other dubious objections to health care reform, but I will tackle those two main arguments.

First, the death panels. Palin was referring to "end of life consultation," which would involve Medicare paying doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. This involves creating a will (usually for the terminally ill), choosing a health care proxy, learning about optional pain medications, and having the options of utilizing hospices. The bill does not promote mercy killings or euthanasia, nor does it decide who lives and who dies. Palin was simply acting the agitator, as is prone to someone of her character.

Second, the Socialist issue. This is a rumor that has spread like a flame over gasoline. What Obama is proposing is a public OPTION. You can choose to retain the plan that you already have. The option is mainly for those who can not afford private options, such as college students, the unemployed, and workers not covered by their businesses. This, in no way, is a precursor to an authoritarian state. I shall make this point more explicit with logic.

The modern Democratic government is based on many years of political philosophers writing about what they believed was the best form of government. In almost every case (Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc.), the government is expected to do what is right and just for its people. Thus, a government should provide its people with health care, as a government is made to ensure the welfare and health of its people. Let us also analyze it this way: a private corporation is created to accrue profit at the expense of quality, though quality is always advisable. A government that is created and supported by an electorate has the responsibility of caring for every citizen. That, in essence, would include affordable (if not free) health care.

Those that have been misinformed should look to learn the facts on their own instead of listening to antagonistic pundits such as Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Don't even listen to Olbermann, or Chris Matthews, or any pundit. Make informed decisions for yourself. Read about the actual provisions of the health care bill and then judge.

There is no need for uncivilized conduct from those who do not agree with the health care bill. We are, after all, not an uncivilized people. I hope.

Das Flüg