I Got A Tan from Standing in the English Rain

Cheerio from London! I've completed my move (actually a week ago) and I'm still figuring things out, but as of right now, I am a resident of London, England, United Kingdom, The Queen's Most Venerable and Pants-less Domain. I still don't have a phone, sadly, but it just makes me remember what living in the 90's was like. Ah yes, good times.

Anyway, I've been loosely keeping up with the 80's sitcom that is American politics, and I must say, I did not expect Mitt Romney to unleash his full bourgeoisie upon America so soon. In that video, Mitt denigrates those who use some sort of "government handout," whether it is the retiree who receives social security checks (after paying into the system his entire life), or the family on welfare that does not have enough to make ends meet.

What's even more hilarious is how he talks about his wife, saying something along the lines of "we don't want people to get tired of Ann (Romney)," as if she spoke in some kind of Fran Drescher-like voice and talked only about her vast collection of handbags.

Seriously Republican Party? This is the best you've got? Are you actively trying to lose this election? What with Paul Ryan's ludicrous new lie about Obama and NASA, I don't know how you guys expect to win anything. Ever. As kids, I bet you guys were the ones who bragged "oh yeah, I've got a girlfriend, but she lives in the next state over," as if that proved your machismo.

There may be a silver lining in this, however: Romney's campaign demonstrates how poorly the moderate Republicans work with the Tea Party Conservatives.

From the outset, Mitt Romney was always the frontrunner; that much had always been obvious. He was rich (note, when I say rich, I mean that he could probably buy Australia), he had "moderate" success (see what I did there?) in Massachusetts as governor, and he ran a "successful business" (see what I did there?). Of course, his positions have oscillated more than a spinning fan in summer, so the Republican core thought the best VP candidate would be, of course, the ultra-conservative, ultra-religious, ultra-deluded Paul Ryan, who makes dubious claims based on what color his stool is in the morning (hint: it's red).

Sadly enough, it is the super-rich who bankroll the ultra-conservative Tea Party, and of course encourage moderate Republicans to turn more conservative. Will there still be moderate Republicans who dislike this new trend? Jon Huntsman certainly demonstrated his willingness to be a moderate during the Republican debates, and if he had actually been selected as the Republican nominee, he would certainly have a better chance than Mitt Romney at this point.

I guess the crux of this blog entry is this: moderate Republicans, please do not support Mitt Romney just because he's running on the Republican ticket. If so, you might as well vote for a cardboard cutout of Ronald Reagan, since it will probably have a better budget plan than Mitt Romney.

That's all for now.
Das Flüg

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

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

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

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