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.
Showing posts with label glenn beck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label glenn beck. Show all posts
Saturday, March 5, 2011
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, September 21, 2010
Brouhaha
If you are someone who pays attention to Congressional elections (which, for America, is about 40% of you), you know how important the upcoming Congressional elections are. You also know that there is vehement crapslinging (one step worse than mudslinging) from both sides, and that the television media only aids in this crapslinging. For that reason, I ask that you, my loyal reader, not watch any TV news regarding the Congressional elections. Read the New York Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, whatever; just don't watch TV news.
Why? Well, for one thing, TV news is heavily opinionated. Wait, you may say, the newspapers are opinionated too. They may be opinionated, but, in the case of the New York Times, only on the last page. Otherwise, all journalists are required to give two sides to every story and be more fair and balanced (in the literal sense of the term, not Fox's).
TV news has an affinity for shaping people's arguments and opinions, and even making non-pertinent topics prudent. If all TV news were balanced, then Park 51 wouldn't be an issue and nor would Pastor Terry Jones.
So, I encourage you to read your news rather than hear it from Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, the aboriginal pygmies at CNN, or your local grumpy pedophile. I know that no one purportedly reads anymore, but I must say that it's entertaining to read about how candidate Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft and believes that masturbation is infidelity.
I guess I'm going to hell, then.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Why? Well, for one thing, TV news is heavily opinionated. Wait, you may say, the newspapers are opinionated too. They may be opinionated, but, in the case of the New York Times, only on the last page. Otherwise, all journalists are required to give two sides to every story and be more fair and balanced (in the literal sense of the term, not Fox's).
TV news has an affinity for shaping people's arguments and opinions, and even making non-pertinent topics prudent. If all TV news were balanced, then Park 51 wouldn't be an issue and nor would Pastor Terry Jones.
So, I encourage you to read your news rather than hear it from Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, the aboriginal pygmies at CNN, or your local grumpy pedophile. I know that no one purportedly reads anymore, but I must say that it's entertaining to read about how candidate Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft and believes that masturbation is infidelity.
I guess I'm going to hell, then.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Friday, September 10, 2010
Insert evil laugh here
My psych professor asked a question about the nature of evil, and below is my answer. It's not very good.
The very concept of evil didn't originate until the advent of the concept of morality and right and wrong. That being the case, it took a lot of time until people were able to reason that murdering your neighbor because you envy his flock of sheep is wrong because it is detrimental to the community, animalistic, and barbaric.
The most native and fundamental motive to the human being is the sense of self-preservation, aka selfishness (to a degree). The concept of evil can be attributed to a human's desire to survive well and beyond his means, though in this case I am circumventing the average person's ability to reason and behave rationally. This selfishness, when humans hunted in tribes, would be diffused to the other members of the tribe, essentially creating an entagled web that was almost analogous to one complete person rather than many. Tribal raids between humans were common, and the tribes that emerged victorious also reveled in the spoils of their victory, oftentimes being the women, weapons and supplies of the defeated tribe. In more evolutionary anthropological terms, winning a raid essentially meant the diversifying of the gene pool, creating more fit and better adaptable offspring. Thus, as self-preservation in this case extends to the entirety of the tribe, the human is fulfilling his primal desires.
As we live in a time where good and evil are more defined, though the boundaries become fuzzy, it is somewhat easier to determine. However, there are special cases: is acting evil in order to produce a good outcome still evil? Is acting with good intentions but achieving a deleterious outcome still considered evil? (I have often heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, though I find that to be a logical fallacy.)
In this case, I choose to ignore religious precepts for good and evil because there are many different religious standards in different beliefs, though all (or at least most) religions can agree that there are several things that are universally considered "evil": murder without justifiable reason, theft, and pork. (Interesting note: There was an ancient Greek cult which forbade the consumption of beans. Go figure.)
Just to explain my pork statement, and to quote one of my favorite movies:
Vincent: Want some bacon?
Jules: No man, I don't eat pork.
Vincent: Are you Jewish?
Jules: Nah, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all.
Vincent: Why not?
Jules: Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.
Vincent: Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.
Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy mother****er. Pigs sleep and root in ****. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces.
Vincent: How about a dog? Dogs eats its own feces.
Jules: I don't eat dog either.
Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charming mother****in' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?
The rule was written that pork was disallowed in many religions because, essentially, pigs are dirty. That's it. They're evil.
I think I lost track of the question.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
The very concept of evil didn't originate until the advent of the concept of morality and right and wrong. That being the case, it took a lot of time until people were able to reason that murdering your neighbor because you envy his flock of sheep is wrong because it is detrimental to the community, animalistic, and barbaric.
The most native and fundamental motive to the human being is the sense of self-preservation, aka selfishness (to a degree). The concept of evil can be attributed to a human's desire to survive well and beyond his means, though in this case I am circumventing the average person's ability to reason and behave rationally. This selfishness, when humans hunted in tribes, would be diffused to the other members of the tribe, essentially creating an entagled web that was almost analogous to one complete person rather than many. Tribal raids between humans were common, and the tribes that emerged victorious also reveled in the spoils of their victory, oftentimes being the women, weapons and supplies of the defeated tribe. In more evolutionary anthropological terms, winning a raid essentially meant the diversifying of the gene pool, creating more fit and better adaptable offspring. Thus, as self-preservation in this case extends to the entirety of the tribe, the human is fulfilling his primal desires.
As we live in a time where good and evil are more defined, though the boundaries become fuzzy, it is somewhat easier to determine. However, there are special cases: is acting evil in order to produce a good outcome still evil? Is acting with good intentions but achieving a deleterious outcome still considered evil? (I have often heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, though I find that to be a logical fallacy.)
In this case, I choose to ignore religious precepts for good and evil because there are many different religious standards in different beliefs, though all (or at least most) religions can agree that there are several things that are universally considered "evil": murder without justifiable reason, theft, and pork. (Interesting note: There was an ancient Greek cult which forbade the consumption of beans. Go figure.)
Just to explain my pork statement, and to quote one of my favorite movies:
Vincent: Want some bacon?
Jules: No man, I don't eat pork.
Vincent: Are you Jewish?
Jules: Nah, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all.
Vincent: Why not?
Jules: Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.
Vincent: Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.
Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy mother****er. Pigs sleep and root in ****. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces.
Vincent: How about a dog? Dogs eats its own feces.
Jules: I don't eat dog either.
Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charming mother****in' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?
The rule was written that pork was disallowed in many religions because, essentially, pigs are dirty. That's it. They're evil.
I think I lost track of the question.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Sunday, September 5, 2010
(Almost) Labor Day Lunacy
Every Sunday, I make the long and perilous 15 minute drive from college to my house in order to do my laundry, work out a bit, and contemplate life.
(Pictured: Bad humor.)
My dad, the Argentine immigrant that he is, decided to ingratiate himself into American culture by doing what a lot of other people do over Labor Day weekend: have a barbecue. His friends came, all of them over the age of 40, leaving me only to hope that I don't look that old when I reach 50. Anyway, skipping past my title of grill master and subsequently stinking of charcoal, after the meal was done I decided to do my usual routine of exercising. I was startled by the sound of my dad yelling at a rather irate and intransigent codger about immigration.
Upon hearing their debate, one facet of the conversation I realized, possibly the most important, was that the old codger was using arguments and almost emulating verbatim the rhetoric of those on Fox News. I had never actually encountered anyone who had so fervently spouted the absolute horse crap that Fox News flaunted as "fair and balanced"; I was amazed. My father (hopefully) soon realized that arguing with that curmudgeon was akin to eating a pinecone; sure, it would give you good fiber, but you don't like the feeling.
It is something that reinforces a personal credo of mine: You can't win an argument with an idiot. Idiot, in this case, is not someone who simply disagrees with me; it is someone who does not have an informed opinion with which to sustain a logical and coherent argument. Essentially, it is the very definition of the word: someone lacking knowledge.
I could go on about how denigrating it is for America to have so many people like that curmudgeon, or how personal opinions have been supplanted by pundit opinions, but, I just feel like I'd be exhuming a dead horse, beating it, burying it again, and then repeating the process simply because I could.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
(Pictured: Bad humor.)
My dad, the Argentine immigrant that he is, decided to ingratiate himself into American culture by doing what a lot of other people do over Labor Day weekend: have a barbecue. His friends came, all of them over the age of 40, leaving me only to hope that I don't look that old when I reach 50. Anyway, skipping past my title of grill master and subsequently stinking of charcoal, after the meal was done I decided to do my usual routine of exercising. I was startled by the sound of my dad yelling at a rather irate and intransigent codger about immigration.
Upon hearing their debate, one facet of the conversation I realized, possibly the most important, was that the old codger was using arguments and almost emulating verbatim the rhetoric of those on Fox News. I had never actually encountered anyone who had so fervently spouted the absolute horse crap that Fox News flaunted as "fair and balanced"; I was amazed. My father (hopefully) soon realized that arguing with that curmudgeon was akin to eating a pinecone; sure, it would give you good fiber, but you don't like the feeling.
It is something that reinforces a personal credo of mine: You can't win an argument with an idiot. Idiot, in this case, is not someone who simply disagrees with me; it is someone who does not have an informed opinion with which to sustain a logical and coherent argument. Essentially, it is the very definition of the word: someone lacking knowledge.
I could go on about how denigrating it is for America to have so many people like that curmudgeon, or how personal opinions have been supplanted by pundit opinions, but, I just feel like I'd be exhuming a dead horse, beating it, burying it again, and then repeating the process simply because I could.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Point of Ire
A group of Muslim radicals are attempting to rubs America's face in the tragedy of 9-11 by building a mosque in Ground Zero.
--EDIT--
Sorry, a Tea Party "enthusiast" hacked into my blog and wrote that. What it should say is "Xenophobia is spreading as a massive smear campaign is being waged to stop a Muslim community center and mosque from being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero."
This is a story that has caused many to revert to "American pride," where the mightiest fist thumping the hairiest chest is always right. How dare they infringe upon this hallowed ground where the mighty lay fallen?
"They." There seems to be this notion that all Muslims are secret terrorists hoping to undermine the well-being of every American. In reality, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the United States are very moderate and/or liberal, and actually oppose the rhetoric of the extremist Muslims who are to blame for the many atrocities. The Imam heading up the building of the community center, for example, worked in an interfaith outreach program, attempting to bridge the gap between the different religions. But of course, it could all be part of his nefarious and beguiling cover.
Of course, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Jews are embezzlers, all Christians are manic depressives, all Chinese people are emotionless, all black people are criminals, etc. See where stereotyping fails? If not, get glasses.
I would talk about the freedom of religion allowed in the US Constitution, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death. What I'd rather talk about is the rhetoric used by Muslim extremists to recruit young people. The common perception is that the US is at war with Islam as a whole, evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Israel, aerial drone bombings, etc. As that is the case, what better way is there to show solidarity with the Islamic world than to support the construction of this mosque and community center? Why not show the world that the United States upholds the values elucidated in the Constitution to every demographic equally?
Perhaps people don't realize that the best way to completely win a war is not with guns, but with overwhelming support.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
--EDIT--
Sorry, a Tea Party "enthusiast" hacked into my blog and wrote that. What it should say is "Xenophobia is spreading as a massive smear campaign is being waged to stop a Muslim community center and mosque from being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero."
This is a story that has caused many to revert to "American pride," where the mightiest fist thumping the hairiest chest is always right. How dare they infringe upon this hallowed ground where the mighty lay fallen?
"They." There seems to be this notion that all Muslims are secret terrorists hoping to undermine the well-being of every American. In reality, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the United States are very moderate and/or liberal, and actually oppose the rhetoric of the extremist Muslims who are to blame for the many atrocities. The Imam heading up the building of the community center, for example, worked in an interfaith outreach program, attempting to bridge the gap between the different religions. But of course, it could all be part of his nefarious and beguiling cover.
Of course, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Jews are embezzlers, all Christians are manic depressives, all Chinese people are emotionless, all black people are criminals, etc. See where stereotyping fails? If not, get glasses.
I would talk about the freedom of religion allowed in the US Constitution, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death. What I'd rather talk about is the rhetoric used by Muslim extremists to recruit young people. The common perception is that the US is at war with Islam as a whole, evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Israel, aerial drone bombings, etc. As that is the case, what better way is there to show solidarity with the Islamic world than to support the construction of this mosque and community center? Why not show the world that the United States upholds the values elucidated in the Constitution to every demographic equally?
Perhaps people don't realize that the best way to completely win a war is not with guns, but with overwhelming support.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thought Experiment
Imagine this: an Atheist runs for president and has a viable chance of being elected. Assume that he or she is a Democrat, as an Atheist in the Republican party is about as likely as Glenn Beck passing a math test. (An Atheist being nominated for president for the Democratic party is unlikely as well, since the party as a whole hopes to gain votes from moderates.) What would happen?
Firstly, the morals of the Atheist nominee would be challenged; the common belief is that morals are grounded in religion, and those without religion are immoral, rabid sexual monsters (cough*catholicpriests*cough) who would destroy all civilization because of a preference for mass anarchy.
It's more than likely that religious groups would protest fervently, heckle, send death threats, etc.
Why should belief in a deity factor into politics, a seemingly non-theocratic institution, especially in the United States, which was built on religious tolerance? I suppose that's my question of the week to you, my single reader. Feel free to comment if you like.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Firstly, the morals of the Atheist nominee would be challenged; the common belief is that morals are grounded in religion, and those without religion are immoral, rabid sexual monsters (cough*catholicpriests*cough) who would destroy all civilization because of a preference for mass anarchy.
It's more than likely that religious groups would protest fervently, heckle, send death threats, etc.
Why should belief in a deity factor into politics, a seemingly non-theocratic institution, especially in the United States, which was built on religious tolerance? I suppose that's my question of the week to you, my single reader. Feel free to comment if you like.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Flotsam
So, this week there was a lot of hullabaloo about where some jejune character named "LeBron James" would play "basketball" next "season." I even saw that people in "Cleveland" burned his "jersey." (I'll stop with the quotes now.) I find it fascinating when we do something so symbolic, so powerful, to someone who plays basketball. Basketball. Seriously. It's not like he's killed anyone or is currently occupying your native country. He plays basketball.
For all I could have cared, he could have chosen to get a sex change and move to Reno; it would not have impacted my life in the least. I don't understand how people are so riled over this. Maybe it's just me.
I mean, there are more important issues to care about, such as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the current rise of Chechnyan rebels, the World Cup, large banks pilfering our money from under our noses, Glenn Beck's bullshit, civil war in Uganda, China's human rights record, global warming, pollution, alternative energy, the BP oil spill, the Republican fight to lift the ban on offshore drilling, Arizona's immigration law, rising unemployment, the degradation of American schools, or maybe even the search for Dick Cheney's heart. My point is, there are much more important things to care about and burn effigies for, and basketball certainly isn't one of them.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
For all I could have cared, he could have chosen to get a sex change and move to Reno; it would not have impacted my life in the least. I don't understand how people are so riled over this. Maybe it's just me.
I mean, there are more important issues to care about, such as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the current rise of Chechnyan rebels, the World Cup, large banks pilfering our money from under our noses, Glenn Beck's bullshit, civil war in Uganda, China's human rights record, global warming, pollution, alternative energy, the BP oil spill, the Republican fight to lift the ban on offshore drilling, Arizona's immigration law, rising unemployment, the degradation of American schools, or maybe even the search for Dick Cheney's heart. My point is, there are much more important things to care about and burn effigies for, and basketball certainly isn't one of them.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Friday, June 18, 2010
Sarah Palin, the World Cup, and Jeffster all in one
So, this is going to be a crowded post. Well, suck it up.
Anyway, last night, in my usual pastime of being bored at night and talking to people on Omegle, I happened to start talking to a member of the Tea Party. He asked me of my opinions on the party, and I told him that it is basically the party of Palin, essentially a subsidiary of the Fox network and an uber-conservative party that promotes partisanship; I also may have thrown in "anti-government" and "distrust of Obama" into that mix as well. The guy kept telling me "you could not be more wrong," which, in colloquial English, is extraordinarily incorrect, as "wrong" is an absolute; one cannot be "more" or "less" wrong. He also spouted to me the credo of the Tea Party, which I have heard many times from the exalted queen Sarah Palin herself: government has overstepped its bounds, and the objective of the party is to "reel it in." Just like Palin, the guy wasn't very specific about how the party will achieve anything, and talking to him was giving me a migraine, so I disconnected.
So, brief history of the Tea Party: Obama proposes raising taxes on those making more than 250k, Glenn Beck, in his infinite wisdom, says that this is like the British raising taxes on the American colonies, calls for "tea party" rallies, eventually turns into an organized party spearheaded by Sarah Palin, Palin reads off of her hand in some convention.
Do I have to describe how stupid, obstinate, obtuse, ignorant and arrogant Sarah Palin is? I hope not.
Anyway, World Cup. One of the most memorable moments is the obvious Robert Greene error that caused the US to tie the Kingdom; notably, he didn't play in the next game against Algeria. He should probably change his name to John Red, or Corbin Blue. VAMOS ARGENTINA!
And, finally, Jeffster.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Anyway, last night, in my usual pastime of being bored at night and talking to people on Omegle, I happened to start talking to a member of the Tea Party. He asked me of my opinions on the party, and I told him that it is basically the party of Palin, essentially a subsidiary of the Fox network and an uber-conservative party that promotes partisanship; I also may have thrown in "anti-government" and "distrust of Obama" into that mix as well. The guy kept telling me "you could not be more wrong," which, in colloquial English, is extraordinarily incorrect, as "wrong" is an absolute; one cannot be "more" or "less" wrong. He also spouted to me the credo of the Tea Party, which I have heard many times from the exalted queen Sarah Palin herself: government has overstepped its bounds, and the objective of the party is to "reel it in." Just like Palin, the guy wasn't very specific about how the party will achieve anything, and talking to him was giving me a migraine, so I disconnected.
So, brief history of the Tea Party: Obama proposes raising taxes on those making more than 250k, Glenn Beck, in his infinite wisdom, says that this is like the British raising taxes on the American colonies, calls for "tea party" rallies, eventually turns into an organized party spearheaded by Sarah Palin, Palin reads off of her hand in some convention.
Do I have to describe how stupid, obstinate, obtuse, ignorant and arrogant Sarah Palin is? I hope not.
Anyway, World Cup. One of the most memorable moments is the obvious Robert Greene error that caused the US to tie the Kingdom; notably, he didn't play in the next game against Algeria. He should probably change his name to John Red, or Corbin Blue. VAMOS ARGENTINA!
And, finally, Jeffster.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
I'll See You In Health!
I would like to thank Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A., for that quote.
As you (yes, you again, my only reader) probably know (since you're so vigilant with the news and all), one of Barack Obama's campaign promises has finally fallen through: the passage of health care reform. *Cue applause*
This isn't the bill that I was hoping for, but it is a necessary first step. Even Dennis Kucinich, one of the most liberal Representatives in the House changed his vote from a "no" to a "yes" because he realized that some kind of reform, however minor, was necessary. Kucinich and I both were hoping for the public option to be available- the ability of a citizen to have his health care provided by the government and not have to pay any cost for treatment- but, perhaps this is a first step. Either way, it is quite momentous.
I find it astounding that so many people charge this with being a "government takeover of health care" and a "foray into Socialism," but neither is even remotely close to the truth. Firstly, the general notion of health care provided to each and every citizen regardless of socio-economic status has become accepted as a universal right. (Though it seems that people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin would disagree.) Almost every industrialized and modernized nation, to my knowledge, has some sort of universal health care system in place. I certainly don't see France, England, Germany, Japan, and even the Czech Republic as "Socialist." In fact, this bill simply extends Medicare benefits for those who cannot afford their own insurance plans or are not covered by their employers (typically small businesses with less than 50 people). It seems almost unconscionable that the United States doesn't have such a system in place already, though, there is always Medicare and Medicaid...
Secondly, some people seem to forget the exact definition of "Socialism." Socialism, in the technical sense, literally means that the government controls production of all products exported and sold by and in the country. That's it. The term should not be conflated with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, or Liberal Neo-Monarchists (in the words of Mitt Romney). The health care plan is simply the government acting in the best interests of the people, especially the poor and disenfranchised. To be led on by the raging right's fear mongering would by irrational and completely absurd.
FDR once said that every American has the right to health care. In this new day, we are one step closer to that.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
As you (yes, you again, my only reader) probably know (since you're so vigilant with the news and all), one of Barack Obama's campaign promises has finally fallen through: the passage of health care reform. *Cue applause*
This isn't the bill that I was hoping for, but it is a necessary first step. Even Dennis Kucinich, one of the most liberal Representatives in the House changed his vote from a "no" to a "yes" because he realized that some kind of reform, however minor, was necessary. Kucinich and I both were hoping for the public option to be available- the ability of a citizen to have his health care provided by the government and not have to pay any cost for treatment- but, perhaps this is a first step. Either way, it is quite momentous.
I find it astounding that so many people charge this with being a "government takeover of health care" and a "foray into Socialism," but neither is even remotely close to the truth. Firstly, the general notion of health care provided to each and every citizen regardless of socio-economic status has become accepted as a universal right. (Though it seems that people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin would disagree.) Almost every industrialized and modernized nation, to my knowledge, has some sort of universal health care system in place. I certainly don't see France, England, Germany, Japan, and even the Czech Republic as "Socialist." In fact, this bill simply extends Medicare benefits for those who cannot afford their own insurance plans or are not covered by their employers (typically small businesses with less than 50 people). It seems almost unconscionable that the United States doesn't have such a system in place already, though, there is always Medicare and Medicaid...
Secondly, some people seem to forget the exact definition of "Socialism." Socialism, in the technical sense, literally means that the government controls production of all products exported and sold by and in the country. That's it. The term should not be conflated with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, or Liberal Neo-Monarchists (in the words of Mitt Romney). The health care plan is simply the government acting in the best interests of the people, especially the poor and disenfranchised. To be led on by the raging right's fear mongering would by irrational and completely absurd.
FDR once said that every American has the right to health care. In this new day, we are one step closer to that.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)