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
Showing posts with label sarah palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sarah palin. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Why I Would Never Want to Be President
A lot of kids, especially young ones, have dreams of one day presiding over the highest office in the United States: the Presidency. I bet that if one were to go into a third grade class and take a straw poll of desired careers, "president" would be among the top, along with "astronaut," "fireman," "doctor," and "high school dropout." This isn't surprising, as the US educational system has inflated and pampered the holy image of the presidency as something sacred and integral to the very functions of the planet. I hate to burst that veritable bubble, but the seasons will continue to change, the years will continue to pass, and the circle of life will continue regardless of whether or not there is an American presidency. There will likely continue to be the high office, however, and it is one that I do not covet in the least. Why?
1. Public exposure: When one becomes president, the private life of the person ceases to be private. All affairs (both literal and sexual) become public knowledge, one's family becomes scrutinized and the unyielding eye of an ever-vigilant infotainment press will spread vitriol in order to produce whatever profit they can. Unfortunately, once one becomes a public figure in the US, suing for the right to privacy becomes an extraordinarily difficult process (as it was already). The privacy of one's home is forfeit.
2. Dealing with wingnuts: This is self-explanatory. As can be seen today, wingnuts with oddly large followings can spread falsehoods in order to create a disturbance in what could otherwise be called civilized debate. Especially in an age of increased partisanship where the leaders of opposition parties make it their duties to simply say "no" regardless of truth, a president would be unable to sway many with reasonable, rational arguments. Winguts also create a high degree of factionalism within the US, though not in the Madisonian sense; instead, the wingnut will seek to create strife and discord simply to promote his/her own political ambitions.
3. Influences: Money plays a very large role in US elections. Without money, one cannot promote oneself with sufficient exposure so as to garner votes. This is why the influence of money from others, especially outsider contributions, weighs so heavily on every candidate; if that candidate does not uphold his/her promise to his/her contributors, it is reasonable to assume that the person with the money can just as easily turn against the candidate. If you are going to run for public office of any kind, be sure to have plenty of funds to support yourself.
4. Stress: The overall level of stress for a president is extraordinary. Looking at any president over their terms, the amount of gray hair accrued and well-focused age lines become easily apparent.
5. Blame: Presidents take blame for things in and out of their control. The economy, bureaucratic failures, even the weather; the President is viewed as the arbiter of all. The President constantly has to defend himself and his party while at the same time deflecting blame onto those who rightly deserve it. Of course, perceptions of a president's culpability will never change for some, and constant scrutinizing and derision will always entail.
I'd rather be a wingnut.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
1. Public exposure: When one becomes president, the private life of the person ceases to be private. All affairs (both literal and sexual) become public knowledge, one's family becomes scrutinized and the unyielding eye of an ever-vigilant infotainment press will spread vitriol in order to produce whatever profit they can. Unfortunately, once one becomes a public figure in the US, suing for the right to privacy becomes an extraordinarily difficult process (as it was already). The privacy of one's home is forfeit.
2. Dealing with wingnuts: This is self-explanatory. As can be seen today, wingnuts with oddly large followings can spread falsehoods in order to create a disturbance in what could otherwise be called civilized debate. Especially in an age of increased partisanship where the leaders of opposition parties make it their duties to simply say "no" regardless of truth, a president would be unable to sway many with reasonable, rational arguments. Winguts also create a high degree of factionalism within the US, though not in the Madisonian sense; instead, the wingnut will seek to create strife and discord simply to promote his/her own political ambitions.
3. Influences: Money plays a very large role in US elections. Without money, one cannot promote oneself with sufficient exposure so as to garner votes. This is why the influence of money from others, especially outsider contributions, weighs so heavily on every candidate; if that candidate does not uphold his/her promise to his/her contributors, it is reasonable to assume that the person with the money can just as easily turn against the candidate. If you are going to run for public office of any kind, be sure to have plenty of funds to support yourself.
4. Stress: The overall level of stress for a president is extraordinary. Looking at any president over their terms, the amount of gray hair accrued and well-focused age lines become easily apparent.
5. Blame: Presidents take blame for things in and out of their control. The economy, bureaucratic failures, even the weather; the President is viewed as the arbiter of all. The President constantly has to defend himself and his party while at the same time deflecting blame onto those who rightly deserve it. Of course, perceptions of a president's culpability will never change for some, and constant scrutinizing and derision will always entail.
I'd rather be a wingnut.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Taxes, Tea Party, and Totalitarianism
Midterms aren't over yet, but I have a week-long interlude between exams and I figured that I should be faithful to my only reader (you) and write something. I know that you've been dying to read what I have to think; sadly, so have I.
Firstly, you may or may not have heard that President Obama plans on letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire at the end of this year. You have probably also heard all the brouhaha on both sides, arguing whether or not to keep them. The gist of the whole thing is that taxes will be raised for those making over 250,000$ if the tax cuts expire. If they are allowed to continue, they will cost American taxpayers approximately 7 billion dollars. The rich can continue to whine about "class warfare" or "losing their money," but the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, people making more than 250,000$ a year will still have enough money to send 4 kids to college and live well while doing so. Suck it up.
Secondly, the Tea Party. If you haven't noticed, they've presented some strange candidates in the last few months, the latest being Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell. In one sentence, Paladino hates gay people and Christine O'Donnell doesn't know anything about recent Supreme Court cases.
Finally, Kim Jong-il named his successor as his youngest son, further alienating his lazy, overweight middle son who enjoys rap. It almost sounds like a bad sitcom.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Firstly, you may or may not have heard that President Obama plans on letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire at the end of this year. You have probably also heard all the brouhaha on both sides, arguing whether or not to keep them. The gist of the whole thing is that taxes will be raised for those making over 250,000$ if the tax cuts expire. If they are allowed to continue, they will cost American taxpayers approximately 7 billion dollars. The rich can continue to whine about "class warfare" or "losing their money," but the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, people making more than 250,000$ a year will still have enough money to send 4 kids to college and live well while doing so. Suck it up.
Secondly, the Tea Party. If you haven't noticed, they've presented some strange candidates in the last few months, the latest being Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell. In one sentence, Paladino hates gay people and Christine O'Donnell doesn't know anything about recent Supreme Court cases.
Finally, Kim Jong-il named his successor as his youngest son, further alienating his lazy, overweight middle son who enjoys rap. It almost sounds like a bad sitcom.
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
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Proposition ∞
Prop 8 was recently overturned in California. For those who don't know what Prop 8 is, it is a mandate to ban gay marriage. Of course, the decision will be appealed, most likely leading to what will become one of the more momentous Supreme Court decisions of this new century. The battle is, of course, being waged by whom one would imagine it would be: the more religious, conservative people on one side ardently pushing against the more liberal on the other. That story seems almost ubiquitous in every political situation now. What's my opinion on this, you ask? (I assume you asked. If not, well, I'll tell you anyway because I'm sure you want to know.)
To understand the religious reasoning behind the conservative argument, one has to know why the bible urges only men and women to be together, while forbidding homosexual relationships. The main reason, as could be repeated by any historian with knowledge of the time period, was the high mortality rate of children between the 1st-10th century AD (and even beyond then, until hygienic practices became standard). In order to continue the species (emphasis on continue), humans must propagate as much as possible. If only 20% of children survive after 2 years of age, make sure you try at least 10 times. Sure, the emotional devastation of losing 8 kids might be too much, but it's for the continuation of the goddamn human race. Having homosexual relationships undermines the idea of that continuation, and thus the church thought to forbid it. (On a side note, most of the "rules" in the bible are common sense aphorisms to ensure that people have as few problems as possible in life, because we all know that screwing around with your neighbor's wife can get you killed.)
As for the fallacious statements that some organizations tout which usually decry that children raised in homosexual relationships have more problems in life, they are exactly that: fallacious. They have little to no statistical evidence, or really any evidence of any kind. In fact, in my sociology class, I read a study that homosexual relationships are statistically more stable than heterosexual relationships. Shove that in your pipe and smoke it, Palin.
My opinion, as an uber-liberal, somewhat Socialist Jedi, is that each and every person has the same rights as the other. That's it. If one person has the right to marry whoever they wish, then a different person, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation or thoughts on Batman, has that exact same right. That's it. Equal protection of the law is embedded in the Constitution of the US. Deal with it and move on.
I prefer to avoid the normative arguments about how love is universal, since this is more a matter of equal rights than equal love. Personally, I'm glad that Prop 8 has been turned on its side. It's a victory for equal rights and a step toward a better future for the US. With the erasure of Prop 8, maybe, hopefully, eventually the conservative and mundane will realize that love and equal rights are infinite and not beholden to any restraints.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
To understand the religious reasoning behind the conservative argument, one has to know why the bible urges only men and women to be together, while forbidding homosexual relationships. The main reason, as could be repeated by any historian with knowledge of the time period, was the high mortality rate of children between the 1st-10th century AD (and even beyond then, until hygienic practices became standard). In order to continue the species (emphasis on continue), humans must propagate as much as possible. If only 20% of children survive after 2 years of age, make sure you try at least 10 times. Sure, the emotional devastation of losing 8 kids might be too much, but it's for the continuation of the goddamn human race. Having homosexual relationships undermines the idea of that continuation, and thus the church thought to forbid it. (On a side note, most of the "rules" in the bible are common sense aphorisms to ensure that people have as few problems as possible in life, because we all know that screwing around with your neighbor's wife can get you killed.)
As for the fallacious statements that some organizations tout which usually decry that children raised in homosexual relationships have more problems in life, they are exactly that: fallacious. They have little to no statistical evidence, or really any evidence of any kind. In fact, in my sociology class, I read a study that homosexual relationships are statistically more stable than heterosexual relationships. Shove that in your pipe and smoke it, Palin.
My opinion, as an uber-liberal, somewhat Socialist Jedi, is that each and every person has the same rights as the other. That's it. If one person has the right to marry whoever they wish, then a different person, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation or thoughts on Batman, has that exact same right. That's it. Equal protection of the law is embedded in the Constitution of the US. Deal with it and move on.
I prefer to avoid the normative arguments about how love is universal, since this is more a matter of equal rights than equal love. Personally, I'm glad that Prop 8 has been turned on its side. It's a victory for equal rights and a step toward a better future for the US. With the erasure of Prop 8, maybe, hopefully, eventually the conservative and mundane will realize that love and equal rights are infinite and not beholden to any restraints.
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
Monday, April 12, 2010
Zoon Politikon
For those of you who don't know, the Polish president died in a plane crash over the weekend. What I didn't realize was how much it affected those not even living in Poland.
A woman who works at the dining hall is originally Polish, obviously living in the US now. I was talking to her today, and I asked how her weekend was. She said that it was difficult for her because of the death of the president, and what I found was astounding was that she really felt anguish because of his death. I saw that as soon as she brought up the president, her demeanor became suddenly sadder. This was fascinating to me.
To me, the notion of someone grieving over the death of a political figure that one does not have to perfunctorily follow is alien. The US has been racked by overzealous partisanship and extreme polarization, mostly culminating in the fact that if, for example, President Obama were to suddenly die, many people would be glad. Sarah Palin, for one, would likely be ecstatic that he was gone, though she obviously wouldn't make the fact explicit. Even I would have been glad to see Dick Cheney keel over during his tenure in office, though we all know that he technically can't die because he doesn't have a heart. This raises an alarming question for me: are we, as the Greeks described, still the political animal, or have we become the intransigent animal? Even more, have we reduced the actual act of politics to one's religious and/or social beliefs to the point where a politician's actions no longer truly matter?
To end on a somewhat lighter note, here's a good bit of Germany philosophy vs. Greek philosophy:
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
A woman who works at the dining hall is originally Polish, obviously living in the US now. I was talking to her today, and I asked how her weekend was. She said that it was difficult for her because of the death of the president, and what I found was astounding was that she really felt anguish because of his death. I saw that as soon as she brought up the president, her demeanor became suddenly sadder. This was fascinating to me.
To me, the notion of someone grieving over the death of a political figure that one does not have to perfunctorily follow is alien. The US has been racked by overzealous partisanship and extreme polarization, mostly culminating in the fact that if, for example, President Obama were to suddenly die, many people would be glad. Sarah Palin, for one, would likely be ecstatic that he was gone, though she obviously wouldn't make the fact explicit. Even I would have been glad to see Dick Cheney keel over during his tenure in office, though we all know that he technically can't die because he doesn't have a heart. This raises an alarming question for me: are we, as the Greeks described, still the political animal, or have we become the intransigent animal? Even more, have we reduced the actual act of politics to one's religious and/or social beliefs to the point where a politician's actions no longer truly matter?
To end on a somewhat lighter note, here's a good bit of Germany philosophy vs. Greek philosophy:
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Monday, March 29, 2010
Quick üpdate!
Because of massive amounts of book-reading and endless self-torture by academic practices, I have had little time to rant about something in my blog. Thus, here is a quick update:
1. Chechen rebels bombed a Russian train station, killing 38+.
2. A South Korean vessel sank in North Korean waters; many are missing.
3. Obama continues to negotiate with Russian president Medvedev for a reduction in nuclear arms.
4. I'm still single.
5. Lady Gaga is still annoying.
6. Sarah Palin is still annoying.
7. Dick Cheney is still searching for his heart.
8. The Texan school board dismissed an appeal to include Oscar Romero in the teaching curriculum, mostly because of the reason that, as quoted from Patricia Hardy, "I guarantee you most of you did not know who Oscar Romero was" and "I just happen to think it's not [important]."
-By the way, I would appreciate it if everyone would e-mail Ms. Hardy and chastise her a bit for her extraordinary ignorance. Oscar Romero was a great man of peace and human rights, and he deserves to never be forgotten. Use this e-mail address to contact the Texas school board: sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us
9. Baseball season starts soon. Hopefully, the Mets won't upset me. Again.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
1. Chechen rebels bombed a Russian train station, killing 38+.
2. A South Korean vessel sank in North Korean waters; many are missing.
3. Obama continues to negotiate with Russian president Medvedev for a reduction in nuclear arms.
4. I'm still single.
5. Lady Gaga is still annoying.
6. Sarah Palin is still annoying.
7. Dick Cheney is still searching for his heart.
8. The Texan school board dismissed an appeal to include Oscar Romero in the teaching curriculum, mostly because of the reason that, as quoted from Patricia Hardy, "I guarantee you most of you did not know who Oscar Romero was" and "I just happen to think it's not [important]."
-By the way, I would appreciate it if everyone would e-mail Ms. Hardy and chastise her a bit for her extraordinary ignorance. Oscar Romero was a great man of peace and human rights, and he deserves to never be forgotten. Use this e-mail address to contact the Texas school board: sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us
9. Baseball season starts soon. Hopefully, the Mets won't upset me. Again.
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
Sunday, September 20, 2009
A list of people who, I believe, should shüt üp.
As I have become severely annoyed with American society lately, here is a list of people that, I believe, if they were to shut up, America would be a better place.
This is no particular order; I hate them all equally (would that mean that my hate is a form of socialism?)
-Joe Wilson
-Kanye West
-People who yell "socialism"
-Tucker Carlson
-Rush Limbaugh
-Bill O'Reilly
-People who bring guns to peaceful rallies
-People who are unwilling to compromise
-People who dismiss ideas out of hand
-Nancy Pelosi
-Perez Hilton
-People who are arrogant
-People who are pretentious and/or pedantic
-Benjamin Netanyahu
-Hamas
-Miley Cyrus
-The Jonas Brothers
-Any and all rap and/or hip hop music with the inference of having sex, being in a club, or (in reference to the Black Eyed Peas) doing "it."
-People who are greedy
-People who are self-serving
-People who believe that the Earth is flat
-People who try to proselytize everyone
-Tobacco companies
-Oil companies
-American car companies
-American bankers
-American health insurance companies
-Companies in general
-Absurd Republicans who make absurd claims
-In fact, anyone who makes an absurd claim. Not just Republicans.
-Racists
-People who think that other cultures and/or beliefs are evil
-Sarah Palin
-Scientologists
-Dr. Phil
-Oprah
-Mahmoud Ahmedinejad
-Robert Mugabe
-Anyone who says that business is the most important factor in the world.
And, finally...
-Rush Limbaugh. Yes, he deserves to be listed twice.
That's all for now.
Das Flüg
This is no particular order; I hate them all equally (would that mean that my hate is a form of socialism?)
-Joe Wilson
-Kanye West
-People who yell "socialism"
-Tucker Carlson
-Rush Limbaugh
-Bill O'Reilly
-People who bring guns to peaceful rallies
-People who are unwilling to compromise
-People who dismiss ideas out of hand
-Nancy Pelosi
-Perez Hilton
-People who are arrogant
-People who are pretentious and/or pedantic
-Benjamin Netanyahu
-Hamas
-Miley Cyrus
-The Jonas Brothers
-Any and all rap and/or hip hop music with the inference of having sex, being in a club, or (in reference to the Black Eyed Peas) doing "it."
-People who are greedy
-People who are self-serving
-People who believe that the Earth is flat
-People who try to proselytize everyone
-Tobacco companies
-Oil companies
-American car companies
-American bankers
-American health insurance companies
-Companies in general
-Absurd Republicans who make absurd claims
-In fact, anyone who makes an absurd claim. Not just Republicans.
-Racists
-People who think that other cultures and/or beliefs are evil
-Sarah Palin
-Scientologists
-Dr. Phil
-Oprah
-Mahmoud Ahmedinejad
-Robert Mugabe
-Anyone who says that business is the most important factor in the world.
And, finally...
-Rush Limbaugh. Yes, he deserves to be listed twice.
That's all for now.
Das Flüg
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Bill Moyers Journal
Here is a quick word from Bill Moyers on health care reform and the raging right:
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)