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

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

(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

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