Mitch McConnell: The New Dr. No

Thanks to last election day's capture of the senate by Republicans (with a lot of gratitude going towards the record low voting numbers), Mitch McConnell, Kentucky republican and distant relative of Kermit the Frog, became senate majority leader. While there is still some time in the current session of congress, McConnell has already taken the time to object to two of President Obama's recent policy announcements: the first being net neutrality, the second being the recent announcement of a climate agreement between the world's two largest polluters, the USA and China.

McConnell was quick to criticize the two as both being a stifling presence to 'innovation,' without going into much detail as to what that actually means, specifically criticizing the climate deal as being a hindrance to creating jobs in the country.

Regardless of whether or not he's right or wrong, McConnell is not being magnanimous in victory; instead, he's actively demonstrating that the next two years will become an endless row of soundbites and pointed fingers accusing the other side of an inability to compromise, all in preparation for the 2016 presidential election.

This plays into what McConnell perceives as a national swing towards Republicans: what they perceive from the election is momentum that they're going to try to ride into 2016 and unify the government under a Republican banner. So, McConnell will continue to tout that he and republicans are actively working to pass bills, but the president's intransigence stops them from passing. And thus, under a republican government, there can be efficiency, action, etc.

To him, this will put Obama in a poor light, as the two houses of congress are finally working in tandem to pass laws for the country. It is a plan, in essence, to turn Obama into a political liability and force democrats to tread carefully around issues that Obama championed in his presidential terms, especially in 2016.

This, of course, discounts the other 2/3 of Americans who simply didn't vote in 2014.

From now until the next presidential/house election, it is up to democrats to organize and reach out not just to the party base, but to independents and moderates. McConnell's soundbite, lame-duck government can be turned on the republicans to show that, while bills have been moving from house to senate only to be vetoed by the president, it is the contents of the bills that are unreasonable.

For instance, one of the main rallying points for republicans this past election was the repeal of the ACA (colloquially known as Obamacare), something that may be feasible under a united republican government. That would certainly be a shame, however, because the ACA dropped the uninsured rate in America to impressive levels. The list of topics will likely grow, given that questions regarding financial regulation and climate change will be swelling in the upcoming years.

Unfortunately for all, voter apathy, as demonstrated in the previous election, is at an all-time high. Democrats brought out nostalgic favorite Bill Clinton to run trump speeches all around the country in support for candidates, though the only problem with that is that you won't get much more than core democrats on to see old Bill speak.

Going forward, democrats have to posture themselves with candidates who can be perceived as not being beholden to business interests, who are outspoken and confident, and who can be seen as energetic personalities. This encapsulated Obama in his 2008 run, and is the aura of Senator Liz Warren, a party favorite.

But this won't happen. At least, it's not likely. After the past 6 years, with revelations about the NSA, drone strikes, financial regulation, et al that have come to light, many might perceive both parties as being equally bad, or one as being less bad than the other. It's the least ideal situation in politics, but with all the insurmountable walls that third parties are forced to climb, it's the inevitable spiral of winner-take-all.

So, for the next 2 years, when Obama says yes, McConnell will say no. He'll say it so much, in fact, that he'll start to understand the word better than anyone else. Every curve, every crevice, every cliff, he will be able to navigate its walls blindfolded, because that will be his phrase of choice for every policy that Obama takes. Perhaps we should fear the day that he says 'yes.'

That's all for now, 
Das Flüg

Boy Meets Anachronistic World

I, like just about every other hormone-addled boy, grew up watching the many exploits of James Bond in his many incarnations. From Connery to Brosnan, I was always excited to see a fun, if not somewhat campy, spy adventure that almost always featured the archetypal arch-rival of the west, the USSR. The first Bond film made after the Cold War ended, Goldeneye (featuring a resoundingly suave Pierce Brosnan), had one very simple line of dialogue that fit that new era:



Bond is a relic of the Cold War. The USSR fell, deflating the military tensions between Russia and the west, and ushering in a time of what some may call "Big Power Peace," simply meaning that there are no wars between the large powers. So, if there is this peace, then why do they still need to spy on each other?

As just about the entire world knows, Edward Snowden, former NSA analyst, leaked information that the US had a massive spying program. That, in and of itself, is not surprising. The kicker, however, was their largest target: Germany.

I was gobsmacked, to use local British parlance. Germany, of all countries, was the target of more spying than Iran, or China, or North Korea, or any of the US' so-called "enemies." Why? Well, there hasn't been any real clear answer, but I can dare to speculate: the US wants to know what will happen with the Euro. Whatever the intention of the US is to do with that knowledge, whether it is used for undermining or attempting to corner the currency swap market, only those in the US intelligence community can know. Again, it's speculation, but I can't fathom any other reason as to why the US would spy on a reputable ally.

Then we come to the very notion of spying on allies, something presumably thought of as unconscionable and unethical. It is a notion stuck in the 1950s, held back by myopic thinking and government bureaucrats still old enough to remember when they were appointed under the Nixon administration. These soulless minions of orthodoxy take a singular form: the aged, commonplace, almost ubiquitous elite in the Pentagon, the State Department, Congress, and the White House. Do they still hold the notion of US hegemony over everyone to be the end-all, be-all?

These men and women (though there are exceptions) grew up in an extremely simple time in terms of foreign policy: good and bad, Capitalism and Communism, us and them, etc., whatever it was the propaganda dictated. Can we truly expect these people to understand a new multipolar world where the machine is greater than the sum of its parts? In other words, can these people see anything aside from power politics where the US is king and premiere?

Possibly not, possibly so: there is evidence for both. On the one hand, the US still has the most technologically advanced military along with the most expensive professional army in the world, and yet they were stymied by guerrilla fighters using weapons from WWII. Clearly, it is not the size of the army or the strength it holds that truly matters anymore, but its ability to adapt to the changing character of war that truly displays its might.

On the other hand, there are senators, such as Elizabeth Warren, who have demonstrated a keen understanding of new age domestic politics, especially in her dogged pursuit of those who perpetrated the financial collapse of 2007, along with her support for aid to university students, where tuition is liable to bankrupt the average student. But, and this is the unfortunate reality of it all, she is the minority.

The men and women now in government had it easy, at least comparatively: tuition prices were exponentially lower when they attended university, and getting some kind of job right out of college was more common than not. The government scandals coming from these neo-Reaganist administrations is enough to sour politics for the younger class, especially those who find their ideals placed in someone who, like Janus, shows one face to the public but a wholly different one when it comes to governing.

So what can we expect of those youth who still want to enter government? Do they work under those who perpetuate orthodoxy, who still believe in Cold War machinations of politics? Do they adopt those beliefs and erase whatever preconceived ideals they might have had, just because they do what is expected of them rather than what is better? The answer is that, well, I don't know. My generation never knew the Cold War, and we have yet to truly enter government and make a difference. We would have to literally let the old guard die to completely understand whether or not we can think outside the realm of defunct notions.

And so, like a boat tethered to shore, we wait for the ideal opportunity to remove ourselves from those anachronistic beliefs of the past and pave our own paths in politics and diplomacy, because otherwise, we will rust and fall apart.

That's all for now, 
Das Flüg

Rights of the Minority

The right of the minority to defend themselves is a founding principle of the United States government, as is shown through the United States Senate. In the Senate, without 60 votes in favor of a bill, the minority party can deter a vote and ultimately defeat a bill without actually having to vote on that bill. It's an interesting system, as the legislative portion of the US government is divided; in the House of Representatives, the majority reigns supreme, while in the Senate, without the "super majority," the minority can easily control debate. Now, I'm not looking to analyze the US government, but the abilities of the minority to defend themselves in general.

What is a minority? A portion of a particular population that constitutes anything less than 50% of that population; for example, out of 400, 199 is the first minority number. Obviously, there are degrees of majority-minority relationships, but viable minorities (minorities with actual power) would typically have to constitute more than 20-30% of a particular population. In general, if fewer than 20% of a population is part of a minority, it's a fringe minority with some trait that is either very esoteric or idiosyncratic.

Now, why should a minority get the same rights as a majority? After all, they are essentially powerless to fight back against the majority. There are several philosophical precedents on which to make an argument, typically that all humans are deserving of equal treatment because we are all born with equal physiological standards (with some to little variation). There are also historical precedents, i.e. the Civil Rights movement, centuries of slavery, etc. Throughout all of recorded history and up to this moment, we have established that all people, regardless of their social status, are equal (or should be equal) in life, liberty, and rights implicit in life.

So why do we still see rights of minorities suppressed in certain places? From more extreme cases of genocide in Darfur, Rwanda, The Balkan Wars, etc., to more religious or social issues, there are still many instances of rejection of rights to certain minorities.

For example, an instance of this is in the recent revelation of the NYPD going beyond their given powers to spy on Muslim students in multiple schools across multiple states, including schools in New Jersey.

Another example is in China, where the Uyghur population has been suppressed violently because of the Uyghur protests against the Chinese government. Now, while China is not the best example of a country that upholds human rights, it is still necessary to hold them to some sort of standard because they are such a powerful nation.

So why do some countries insist on repressing the minority groups in their countries? A general explanation is a bit hard to elicit, since the reasons often vary on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps some majority groups feel as if they would be oppressed by the minority if the minority were to gain power (such as when Sunni Saddam Hussein ruled over predominantly Shi'a Iraq); perhaps other majority groups feel that being the majority favors them because of the ability to give oneself multiple advantages.

That being said, a minority could come with intangible powers, such as through money or through items (such as weapons, land, etc.). Manipulation then comes into play, which is an entirely different issue that I am much too tired at the moment to write about.

Oftentimes, it is the intangible items that set the two groups apart, whether they are the majority or not. The intangibles are seemingly more important than sheer numbers, as having a greater amount of resources with which to centralize power creates an environment conducive to the will of those with the intangible items.

So, if a minority controls a majority of the intangibles, and the intangibles are later de-powered or have their abilities removed, can the minority continue to feign being a majority? If the reverse is true and the majority controls the intangibles of society and those intangibles are given no value, does the minority realize their new power?

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

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.

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

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.

Victory for Democracy

This past Election Day, Americans sent a clear message to their representatives and senators: we will exercise our support of democratic principles by voting for the other guy rather than the incumbent. After all, the best way to ensure a stable, functioning government is to vote for someone whose positions are unknown to you. I mean, all that has been done by the previously Democratic senate and house has been health care reform, children’s health care, credit reforms, veteran’s relief, a tax cut for 90% of Americans, opened up avenues for stem cell research, appropriated an unprecedented amount of money for non-military scientific research, halted the CIA torture program, gave tax cuts to small businesses, student loan reforms, and they were attempting to end the Bush-era tax cuts, which gave tax cuts to the upper echelons of wage-earners. But, who really cares about that anyway?
The newest representatives, many of whom are conservative Republicans, want to cut the deficit and cut government spending. Great! Finally, a relief from the burgeoning debt and all those social services that poor people use, like social security, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, police departments, fire departments, libraries, and prisons. And who needs research on stem cells anyway?
I assume that in two years when the next election cycle comes around, each and every eligible voter will look at the accomplishments of the now-Republican house and their individual representatives and make a vote, not based on actual action, but rather on personal chagrin. Who needs to make an informed vote when we can just vote for the other guy?

That’s all for now,
Das Flüg

Bill Moyers Journal

Here is a quick word from Bill Moyers on health care reform and the raging right: