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
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Saddle Up, Lock and Load
In case you've missed it (somehow), North Korea has been ratcheting up their war rhetoric of late. Of course, any actual tactical strike made by Mr. Kim Jong-Un is likely to elicit an extreme response from the US and South Korea. North Korea is far outgunned, because at this point, it's unlikely that they have a capable nuclear arsenal, much less the ability to actually put nuclear warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, let's assume, at least for the moment, that North Korea is serious in its bellicosity and actually intends to strike at South Korea or Japan (because the US is probably unreachable). What should the international community (re: the US) do?
One obvious answer is, of course, retaliate. Why shouldn't we retaliate, the hawks would say. It's a good question, but there is also a good answer. It isn't the North Korean people who threaten the world with annihilation, it is its untested and frightened leader. Kim Jong-Un stepped into the leadership position not a military man, but a son of a respected leader (in NK) who has a history of enjoying western culture.
When looking at North Korea, one must also look at the military: the military rules, above all else. North Korea has the largest standing army on Earth, mostly due to the fact that its government spouts anti-west and anti-South Korean propaganda. The top generals also wouldn't want a respected leader replaced by someone who has no prior military experience and who has, at least rhetorically, stated that peaceful negotiations are possible. What better way to perpetuate military dominance than to remove the man who threatens their purpose?
Thus, this is likely Jong-Un's proving ground: seeing how far he can push the rest of the world before the clock stops on his decision to push the button or not push the button. Of course, there is always a point of no return for this sort of thing, and it was nearly crossed in the Cuban Missile Crisis; for Jong-Un, that point may be when he recognizes that the NK military generals want to proceed with military action, and he doesn't want to. That would almost certainly lead to the beginning of hostilities, or a coup.
So, let's assume that Jong-Un does decide to strike a target, without being too specific about its location. What does the US do? The US has a military umbrella protecting South Korea and Japan, two of North Korea's assumed targets, leaving it responsible to come to the aid of either country in case of attack. Should it retaliate immediately, however?
In my opinion, no. Even if the US military strikes can be carried out only on government targets, the US should not attack. Why, you ask?
First, let me state that I am not ubiquitously anti-war; if a nation is attacked, obviously they have the right to retaliate, but just because one has the right to retaliate, that does not mean that it should be the first option. Consider the military strength of the US: it is the most technologically advanced military in the world with the highest number of nuclear weapons, fighter jets, etc. etc. etc. Razing a country like North Korea would only be problematic, especially with China right nearby (though that is another story).
The US should, instead, give North Korea, and specifically, Kim Jong-Un, options: First, give him the option of ceding power and dissolving the government (obviously won't happen); Second, give him the option of fleeing North Korea (problematic, but Kim is facing a lot of backlash from the established military leaders, though it still likely won't happen); Third, in conjunction with both China and South Korea, open the borders and allow NK citizens to become refugees (definitely won't happen); Fourth, disarm completely, dissolve the government, place the military under South Korean command, and surrender to a coalition force (definitely won't happen); Fifth, give him the option of disarming and opening the economy AND government.
President Obama has avoided making any aggressive remarks against North Korea, and for that, he is smart. He knows the situation of the country all too well, and is much less likely to engage in any kind of strike, preemptive or otherwise, than his predecessor was. I'm hoping that he can carry this rumination with him should there be some sort of outbreak; otherwise, several million people may die in the process.
Any war instigated by NK would have to be an absolute war, i.e. an all-or-nothing game. Giving Kim the option of an escape from (basically guaranteed) annihilation will likely work, but of course, that doesn't say anything about his generals.
The situation, in itself, is complex, with so many different angles (I avoided talking about China completely, though it fulfills the strange love triangle between them, NK, and the US; the issue of famine in North Korea is also salient, along with the younger population, many of whom are less likely to believe the government propaganda, etc.) that it's hard to see viable options. I'm just hoping that the first option isn't the last one for the people of North Korea.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
One obvious answer is, of course, retaliate. Why shouldn't we retaliate, the hawks would say. It's a good question, but there is also a good answer. It isn't the North Korean people who threaten the world with annihilation, it is its untested and frightened leader. Kim Jong-Un stepped into the leadership position not a military man, but a son of a respected leader (in NK) who has a history of enjoying western culture.
When looking at North Korea, one must also look at the military: the military rules, above all else. North Korea has the largest standing army on Earth, mostly due to the fact that its government spouts anti-west and anti-South Korean propaganda. The top generals also wouldn't want a respected leader replaced by someone who has no prior military experience and who has, at least rhetorically, stated that peaceful negotiations are possible. What better way to perpetuate military dominance than to remove the man who threatens their purpose?
Thus, this is likely Jong-Un's proving ground: seeing how far he can push the rest of the world before the clock stops on his decision to push the button or not push the button. Of course, there is always a point of no return for this sort of thing, and it was nearly crossed in the Cuban Missile Crisis; for Jong-Un, that point may be when he recognizes that the NK military generals want to proceed with military action, and he doesn't want to. That would almost certainly lead to the beginning of hostilities, or a coup.
So, let's assume that Jong-Un does decide to strike a target, without being too specific about its location. What does the US do? The US has a military umbrella protecting South Korea and Japan, two of North Korea's assumed targets, leaving it responsible to come to the aid of either country in case of attack. Should it retaliate immediately, however?
In my opinion, no. Even if the US military strikes can be carried out only on government targets, the US should not attack. Why, you ask?
First, let me state that I am not ubiquitously anti-war; if a nation is attacked, obviously they have the right to retaliate, but just because one has the right to retaliate, that does not mean that it should be the first option. Consider the military strength of the US: it is the most technologically advanced military in the world with the highest number of nuclear weapons, fighter jets, etc. etc. etc. Razing a country like North Korea would only be problematic, especially with China right nearby (though that is another story).
The US should, instead, give North Korea, and specifically, Kim Jong-Un, options: First, give him the option of ceding power and dissolving the government (obviously won't happen); Second, give him the option of fleeing North Korea (problematic, but Kim is facing a lot of backlash from the established military leaders, though it still likely won't happen); Third, in conjunction with both China and South Korea, open the borders and allow NK citizens to become refugees (definitely won't happen); Fourth, disarm completely, dissolve the government, place the military under South Korean command, and surrender to a coalition force (definitely won't happen); Fifth, give him the option of disarming and opening the economy AND government.
President Obama has avoided making any aggressive remarks against North Korea, and for that, he is smart. He knows the situation of the country all too well, and is much less likely to engage in any kind of strike, preemptive or otherwise, than his predecessor was. I'm hoping that he can carry this rumination with him should there be some sort of outbreak; otherwise, several million people may die in the process.
Any war instigated by NK would have to be an absolute war, i.e. an all-or-nothing game. Giving Kim the option of an escape from (basically guaranteed) annihilation will likely work, but of course, that doesn't say anything about his generals.
The situation, in itself, is complex, with so many different angles (I avoided talking about China completely, though it fulfills the strange love triangle between them, NK, and the US; the issue of famine in North Korea is also salient, along with the younger population, many of whom are less likely to believe the government propaganda, etc.) that it's hard to see viable options. I'm just hoping that the first option isn't the last one for the people of North Korea.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Monday, March 4, 2013
Personal Diplomacy
This past week, famed discoball Dennis Rodman visited North Korea on what some have called a "diplomatic mission," others a "wrong left turn at China, and oops, let's try to pass this off as actually meaning to come here." He returned, saying that Kim Jong-Un, the Stay-Puft leader of North Korea, had a message for US President Barack Obama: "Call me."
No, seriously, Kim Jong-Un said "call me," like he's a tittering schoolgirl and Obama is the captain of the high school's varsity football team. Of course, the Obama Administration released a statement along the lines of "we are working to reach a constructive dialogue with North Korea regarding their nuclear program, etc. etc. etc.," but all denigration aside, why not call Kim Jong-Un?
Let's state some obvious facts first: North Korea has been "at war" with South Korea since the armistice for the Korean War. The United States holds a sizable force along the border. South Korea falls under the United States' nuclear umbrella. North Korea has been testing nuclear arms, seriously pissing off their closest ally, China. The level of famine within North Korea (according to many sources) kills off a large percentage of the population. Recent defectors state that the level of belief in the state's propaganda is falling. The North Korean regime may be feeling stresses. If now is not the time to engage North Korea directly, it is certainly coming.
The United States and South Korea are the two main "opponents" to North Korea, though the North has always seen the US as the larger threat. At this point, there is nothing "weak" in calling Kim Jong-Un directly and asking, "Are you ready to negotiate your nuclear program?" Who knows, perhaps Kim Jong-Il's son is more reasonable than his father and is willing to let some compromise happen within that humanitarian crisis of a state. Even if he isn't, calling the current leader is certainly a better sign of respect and possible willingness to actually negotiate than implementing harsh sanctions and issuing the same bellicose rhetoric over and over again.
So, President Obama, even though you haven't met him, it's not that crazy, and I'm sure you have his number, so call him, maybe. At least do it with all the starving citizens of North Korea in mind. You did win a Nobel Prize, after all.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Monday, October 8, 2012
A Debate in 8 Pictures
A friendly debate between me and a friend. I'm in the blue, not because I'm a democrat, but because blue is my favorite color.
Monday, September 10, 2012
My usual procrastination
It's been a while since I've posted, but for good reasons:
First, I've been writing heavily for another book. I've reached 60,000 words pretty quickly, if you understand how much that is.
Second, I've had to find accommodation in London in a hurry because of certain extenuating circumstances. Doing so is very time-consuming and, I assure you, very stressful. Thankfully, I've found a good place.
Now, as that cool breeze rolls in and reminds us all that it is yet another presidential election season, I think my only real complaint (for once, I only have one) is: How can anyone who makes less than $250k a year, or is a woman, or is a fiscal conservative, or is a senior, support the Romney-Ryan ticket?
No, seriously. How? I can't wrap my head around the support that Romney has from the Republican Party and various other sects of "traditional" American conservatism. The only people who should support the ticket are people who stand to benefit from his ludicrous budget plan, and that is a vast minority of voters.
I feel as if so many Republicans are suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias- that is, they're ignoring all the blatantly terrible and inconsistent positions of Mitt Romney just because they want Republicans to win.
Here is a list of all the topics Mitt Romney has changed his mind on (taken from www.procon.org, an overview of presidential positions):
His fiscal plan is simply puzzling. Romney somehow wants to cut all spending to 20% of GDP which, as the article so accurately states, is impossible.
So why, why, why is anyone in their right mind supporting this? Mitt Romney can trumpet the words "America" and "freedom" all he wants, but that doesn't make his policies any less confusing.
This is simply my opinion: the Cold War still exists. I don't mean that the United States is still holding its finger over the big red button, staring menacingly at Russia from across the table, but that the two parties in the United States are in a virtual war. Why?
Why not? There is no major enemy in the world to threaten the United States with immediate destruction and force government hawkishness. There is no external threat that "directly attacks" American values, regardless of what various pundits call "Socialism" or "Communism" or "Jihad." If there is no viable external threat to America, then there must be an internal one. If it is not physical, then it is ideological.
So are people willing to vote for a man who believes that not everyone should have equal rights, or that women should not have the right to choose (even if they're raped)? It makes no sense. It makes none at all.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
First, I've been writing heavily for another book. I've reached 60,000 words pretty quickly, if you understand how much that is.
Second, I've had to find accommodation in London in a hurry because of certain extenuating circumstances. Doing so is very time-consuming and, I assure you, very stressful. Thankfully, I've found a good place.
Now, as that cool breeze rolls in and reminds us all that it is yet another presidential election season, I think my only real complaint (for once, I only have one) is: How can anyone who makes less than $250k a year, or is a woman, or is a fiscal conservative, or is a senior, support the Romney-Ryan ticket?
No, seriously. How? I can't wrap my head around the support that Romney has from the Republican Party and various other sects of "traditional" American conservatism. The only people who should support the ticket are people who stand to benefit from his ludicrous budget plan, and that is a vast minority of voters.
I feel as if so many Republicans are suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias- that is, they're ignoring all the blatantly terrible and inconsistent positions of Mitt Romney just because they want Republicans to win.
Here is a list of all the topics Mitt Romney has changed his mind on (taken from www.procon.org, an overview of presidential positions):
- Abortion (Pro, then Con)
- TARP
- Automotive bailout
- Outsourcing
- Health care (multiple times)
- Social Security Privatization
His fiscal plan is simply puzzling. Romney somehow wants to cut all spending to 20% of GDP which, as the article so accurately states, is impossible.
So why, why, why is anyone in their right mind supporting this? Mitt Romney can trumpet the words "America" and "freedom" all he wants, but that doesn't make his policies any less confusing.
This is simply my opinion: the Cold War still exists. I don't mean that the United States is still holding its finger over the big red button, staring menacingly at Russia from across the table, but that the two parties in the United States are in a virtual war. Why?
Why not? There is no major enemy in the world to threaten the United States with immediate destruction and force government hawkishness. There is no external threat that "directly attacks" American values, regardless of what various pundits call "Socialism" or "Communism" or "Jihad." If there is no viable external threat to America, then there must be an internal one. If it is not physical, then it is ideological.
So are people willing to vote for a man who believes that not everyone should have equal rights, or that women should not have the right to choose (even if they're raped)? It makes no sense. It makes none at all.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Nowhere Man
If you were hit in the head with a brick and spent the last year in a coma, then you'd have a viable reason as to why you haven't heard anything about the Arab Spring. As of right now, the Arab Spring, as a whole movement, is probably the largest pro-democracy movement the world has ever seen. As of right now, the formerly dictatorial regimes in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya have all fallen, whether it was through public pressure or rebel insurgency. Also as of right now, many countries still face huge public opposition, notably Syria, Lebanon, and Bahrain.
I suppose the question I want to ask is, does NATO's intervention in Libya to help overthrow Moammar Ghaddafi create a precedent?
To put it in more eloquent terms, because of the supposed mission in Libya where NATO promised to arm and defend civilians with the express purpose of ending the human rights abuses in Libya, is it now incumbent upon NATO to intervene in other countries in the middle of their Arab Spring uprising?
(Unfortunately, the 2nd half of this did not save, so I'll try to reconstruct what I wrote from memory.)
In my opinion, yes, NATO has the obligation of intervention in the Arab Spring, especially in cases where there are gross human rights violations. In Syria right now, there have been multiple cases reported of the Syrian army massacring entire villages, shelling towns with mortars, entering houses and gunning down families, etc.
So, what is the difference between Libya and Syria? What do they have in common?
So what is the difference between then and now? Elections. The US is the principle actor in NATO, typically authorizing and overseeing its actions. Obama knows that he has lost a good share of his support over the past 4 years due to his inability to close Guantanamo Bay, his support of nuclear energy, bailouts, etc. He also knows that if he takes action against Syria, the Republicans, to the malaise and exasperation of the non-FOX viewers, will lambaste him for "wasting tax dollars" or some other reason. (I'm quite sure that if a Republican were in office and were to take action against Syria, they would justify it as "ensuring democracy" or whatnot. Partisanship is tiresome.)
If I were President Obama, I would have done away with his ill-advised attempts at partisanship years ago and acted like the man who had so much promise so long ago and who was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for not being George Bush. The Republicans will berate you no matter what. And, you know what, you're the president; you have access to the greatest resources in the world. Use them. Sway the American people.
Since Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been intransigent and unwilling to yield, it falls upon the international community to act on behalf of the people being massacred, especially NATO, since there is now the idea that the large democratic countries will support democratic movements.
So, NATO should at least show the same support for the Syrian rebels that they showed for the Libyan ones, just to show that for once, election-time doesn't predominate above what should be done.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
I suppose the question I want to ask is, does NATO's intervention in Libya to help overthrow Moammar Ghaddafi create a precedent?
To put it in more eloquent terms, because of the supposed mission in Libya where NATO promised to arm and defend civilians with the express purpose of ending the human rights abuses in Libya, is it now incumbent upon NATO to intervene in other countries in the middle of their Arab Spring uprising?
(Unfortunately, the 2nd half of this did not save, so I'll try to reconstruct what I wrote from memory.)
In my opinion, yes, NATO has the obligation of intervention in the Arab Spring, especially in cases where there are gross human rights violations. In Syria right now, there have been multiple cases reported of the Syrian army massacring entire villages, shelling towns with mortars, entering houses and gunning down families, etc.
So, what is the difference between Libya and Syria? What do they have in common?
- A dictator? [Yes.]
- A rebel army? [Yup.]
- Human rights violations? [Definitely.]
- International condemnation? [As always.]
- A large oil cache? [Uh huh.]
So what is the difference between then and now? Elections. The US is the principle actor in NATO, typically authorizing and overseeing its actions. Obama knows that he has lost a good share of his support over the past 4 years due to his inability to close Guantanamo Bay, his support of nuclear energy, bailouts, etc. He also knows that if he takes action against Syria, the Republicans, to the malaise and exasperation of the non-FOX viewers, will lambaste him for "wasting tax dollars" or some other reason. (I'm quite sure that if a Republican were in office and were to take action against Syria, they would justify it as "ensuring democracy" or whatnot. Partisanship is tiresome.)
If I were President Obama, I would have done away with his ill-advised attempts at partisanship years ago and acted like the man who had so much promise so long ago and who was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for not being George Bush. The Republicans will berate you no matter what. And, you know what, you're the president; you have access to the greatest resources in the world. Use them. Sway the American people.
Since Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been intransigent and unwilling to yield, it falls upon the international community to act on behalf of the people being massacred, especially NATO, since there is now the idea that the large democratic countries will support democratic movements.
So, NATO should at least show the same support for the Syrian rebels that they showed for the Libyan ones, just to show that for once, election-time doesn't predominate above what should be done.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
My Sudden But Inevitable Return
Unlike General MacArthur, I have returned. It was a long, arduous semester, I didn't perform as well as I expected, but I survived, as all people eventually do. I finished all my applications to graduate schools, I'm working on job/internship/fellowship applications, blah blah blah. I'm in for an easy semester as it concerns my schoolwork, and for that, I'm thankful.
Anyway, on to more important things. First of all, the year of "doom" is upon us. We all know what that means: time to party every day until the end of 2012 like hedonists on cocaine until we all wake up the next day and realize that the world is still here and you have to apologize to your boss and co-workers for telling them to all fu** themselves. Also, make sure to remember whether or not you had condoms on you for those hazy, insane nights.
Second of all, and probably more important, Barack Obama just won the 2012 election. No, I'm not a fortune teller; looking at the state of the Republican opposition, it's pretty easy to see that Obama has a clear edge. The current Republican frontrunner, former speaker of the house and moleskin rug Newt Gingrich, has been racked with controversy. Both his public and private lives are enough to make even Herman Cain say "Damn! That guy's an asshole." Because of the ultra-conservative nature of the Republican Party (Tea Party), Gingrich has been bashing everyone he can for being "too moderate." Just recently, he went on the offensive against Romney, attacking in particular Romney's health care bill that was instituted while he was governor of Massachusetts. Funnily enough, a memo was just released from several years back that had Gingrich praising the plan. Go figure.
Third of all, the Euro. The doomsayers are creating the image that the Euro will break apart, meaning the end of the European Union, blah blah blah. The European Union won't break apart. It's facing a similar crisis that the United States faced back in its formative years, in that the debts of several states were dragging down the country. The beauty of the European Union is that it has the ability to adapt and learn, and from this, they shall learn.
This post may have seemed scatterbrained, and that's because it was. I'm just out of practice, and it's kind of late. Until next time, then.
Allons-y!
Das Flüg
Anyway, on to more important things. First of all, the year of "doom" is upon us. We all know what that means: time to party every day until the end of 2012 like hedonists on cocaine until we all wake up the next day and realize that the world is still here and you have to apologize to your boss and co-workers for telling them to all fu** themselves. Also, make sure to remember whether or not you had condoms on you for those hazy, insane nights.
Second of all, and probably more important, Barack Obama just won the 2012 election. No, I'm not a fortune teller; looking at the state of the Republican opposition, it's pretty easy to see that Obama has a clear edge. The current Republican frontrunner, former speaker of the house and moleskin rug Newt Gingrich, has been racked with controversy. Both his public and private lives are enough to make even Herman Cain say "Damn! That guy's an asshole." Because of the ultra-conservative nature of the Republican Party (Tea Party), Gingrich has been bashing everyone he can for being "too moderate." Just recently, he went on the offensive against Romney, attacking in particular Romney's health care bill that was instituted while he was governor of Massachusetts. Funnily enough, a memo was just released from several years back that had Gingrich praising the plan. Go figure.
Third of all, the Euro. The doomsayers are creating the image that the Euro will break apart, meaning the end of the European Union, blah blah blah. The European Union won't break apart. It's facing a similar crisis that the United States faced back in its formative years, in that the debts of several states were dragging down the country. The beauty of the European Union is that it has the ability to adapt and learn, and from this, they shall learn.
This post may have seemed scatterbrained, and that's because it was. I'm just out of practice, and it's kind of late. Until next time, then.
Allons-y!
Das Flüg
Friday, September 2, 2011
Political Perpetualities
All of the candidates in the Republican field vying for the presidential nomination are running a relentless campaign, not against each other, but against Barack Obama. Each one is trying to flaunt their conservative, "traditional" credentials, and in doing so they are pandering to the lowest common denominator of the Republican party, the religious extreme. The only two different individuals out of the entire field are Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman.
Ron Paul is different from the field in that he doesn't equivocate; that is, he doesn't bother with lofty language praising America and stating that America is the best country in the world. Instead, he states exactly what he believes, which is something unheard of from a political candidate. His intentions and statements, however extreme, are sincere and concise explanations of what he believes. I don't agree with his beliefs, but I respect his ability to be honest.
Jon Huntsman recently said that "evolution is a fact" and that the members of the Republican party mustn't be the "anti-science" party. He is, of course, not the frontrunner, but he does have the moderate appeal that the Republicans need to win. The other candidates, such as Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Caine, et al., all question evolution and have admittedly frightening beliefs about their religions.
Of course, they must face the current president, Barack Obama. It seems that 3 years has passed and not much has happened in the way of progress, as he's given money to banks, allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue, didn't get a public option for healthcare, etc. etc. etc. He has time and time again conceded too much to Republicans and has moved away from legal action against those who created the recession in 2008 (some of whom are in his cabinet). I suppose the choice is a lesser of two evils.
This post may seem scatterbrained. That's because it is.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Ron Paul is different from the field in that he doesn't equivocate; that is, he doesn't bother with lofty language praising America and stating that America is the best country in the world. Instead, he states exactly what he believes, which is something unheard of from a political candidate. His intentions and statements, however extreme, are sincere and concise explanations of what he believes. I don't agree with his beliefs, but I respect his ability to be honest.
Jon Huntsman recently said that "evolution is a fact" and that the members of the Republican party mustn't be the "anti-science" party. He is, of course, not the frontrunner, but he does have the moderate appeal that the Republicans need to win. The other candidates, such as Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Caine, et al., all question evolution and have admittedly frightening beliefs about their religions.
Of course, they must face the current president, Barack Obama. It seems that 3 years has passed and not much has happened in the way of progress, as he's given money to banks, allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue, didn't get a public option for healthcare, etc. etc. etc. He has time and time again conceded too much to Republicans and has moved away from legal action against those who created the recession in 2008 (some of whom are in his cabinet). I suppose the choice is a lesser of two evils.
This post may seem scatterbrained. That's because it is.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Monday, May 2, 2011
Reactions
I didn't dare to open a newspaper today. Not a single one drew my interest. I already knew the gist, and I don't care for the finer details. No two papers had the same headline, but they all screamed the same nauseating exuberance of a false victory. Some were a bit more explicit, as with the New York Post's "Got Him! Vengeance at Last! US Finally Nails the Bastard!", or the New York Times' hilariously objective "Bin Laden Killed By US Forces In Pakistan, Obama Says, Declaring Justice Has Been Done." I didn't read any article today. I simply didn't want to. I didn't want to read about the minutiae of planning the operation while coordinating with all the relative intelligence agencies, or reactions from Congress, or anything diverting attention away from the reaction of the American people. How are we to feel?
If I were anyone else reading this post, I would snort haughtily and say "I'm to feel incredible! A blow for justice in the world has been dealt, and we are now vindicated!", but I'm not anyone else. I can't celebrate death, even in the taking of someone described as "enemy number 1." I can't, and I won't. A man was killed who, believe it or not, was fighting for his convictions and his way of life, however strange that way of life would seem when juxtaposed with ours. Here was a man who witnessed American and Israeli forces killing Lebanese civilians without so much as a second thought, and so to him, his actions were justified. Above all, he was a man, not a monster.
To him, the United States was the monster. It was a monster constituted of avarice and disregard for human life, one composed of demons and only a modicum of respectable people. He was not evil, he was not, as a rather ignorant classmate of mine so eagerly spouted today, a "dirtbag," and he was not so different from every American in the wake of 9/11. His unfortunate experiences colored his perspective on life, just like our experience did for us. If you cannot understand that, I express my condolences.
Turning someone into an object is easy; all it takes is a certain disregard for their past and their personality. It requires a lack of empathy and understanding that is so easy to elicit when in times of duress, as we are so eager to ease the pain of any inflicted wound.
To celebrate the killing of an enemy is to condone death to those we deem as "enemies." Could this lead to a belief that the world is monochromatic, that everything is simply good and evil and that we are always on the side of righteousness? I don't know. Somehow, I'd rather not find out.
That's all.
If I were anyone else reading this post, I would snort haughtily and say "I'm to feel incredible! A blow for justice in the world has been dealt, and we are now vindicated!", but I'm not anyone else. I can't celebrate death, even in the taking of someone described as "enemy number 1." I can't, and I won't. A man was killed who, believe it or not, was fighting for his convictions and his way of life, however strange that way of life would seem when juxtaposed with ours. Here was a man who witnessed American and Israeli forces killing Lebanese civilians without so much as a second thought, and so to him, his actions were justified. Above all, he was a man, not a monster.
To him, the United States was the monster. It was a monster constituted of avarice and disregard for human life, one composed of demons and only a modicum of respectable people. He was not evil, he was not, as a rather ignorant classmate of mine so eagerly spouted today, a "dirtbag," and he was not so different from every American in the wake of 9/11. His unfortunate experiences colored his perspective on life, just like our experience did for us. If you cannot understand that, I express my condolences.
Turning someone into an object is easy; all it takes is a certain disregard for their past and their personality. It requires a lack of empathy and understanding that is so easy to elicit when in times of duress, as we are so eager to ease the pain of any inflicted wound.
To celebrate the killing of an enemy is to condone death to those we deem as "enemies." Could this lead to a belief that the world is monochromatic, that everything is simply good and evil and that we are always on the side of righteousness? I don't know. Somehow, I'd rather not find out.
That's all.
Monday, March 14, 2011
A Turn for the Worse
Two of the largest news stories in the world have taken a turn for the worse:
First, in Japan, as everyone is probably well aware of already, the death toll continues to rise and the threat of a nuclear meltdown seems to become more likely as each day passes. Cities have been swept into the ocean, and the death toll is believed to be more than 10,000, at the least. People have gone for days without clean water, food, heat, etc. If you can, please donate to the Red Cross, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, etc.
Second, in Libya, pro-Gaddafi forces are striking at the rebels with superior air and naval power as a rebel victory continually seems to be slipping out of reach. Debates have been raging as to whether or not to impose a no-fly zone, help with foreign troops, etc., though there has been little action by the international community. The Arab League has asked NATO and the Group of Eight to impose a no-fly zone, though Turkey (NATO) and Russia and China (G8) do not support the notion. It is a tricky situation.
What do I think about Libya? The rebels are clearly outgunned, as they do not have (to my knowledge) any naval or air capabilities, as well as a small, if not negligible amount of artillery. They are being pushed back east and will likely be forced to flee the country if Gaddafi's forces march to the border with Egypt. In my opinion, the US and other countries should, at least, declare recognition of the rebel's transitional government as the authority of Libya, and thus open trade relations with them, selling arms at low prices. That's what I would do, at least.
Aside from international matters, I'm on spring break. Hooray for a week spent in my boxers.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
First, in Japan, as everyone is probably well aware of already, the death toll continues to rise and the threat of a nuclear meltdown seems to become more likely as each day passes. Cities have been swept into the ocean, and the death toll is believed to be more than 10,000, at the least. People have gone for days without clean water, food, heat, etc. If you can, please donate to the Red Cross, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, etc.
Second, in Libya, pro-Gaddafi forces are striking at the rebels with superior air and naval power as a rebel victory continually seems to be slipping out of reach. Debates have been raging as to whether or not to impose a no-fly zone, help with foreign troops, etc., though there has been little action by the international community. The Arab League has asked NATO and the Group of Eight to impose a no-fly zone, though Turkey (NATO) and Russia and China (G8) do not support the notion. It is a tricky situation.
What do I think about Libya? The rebels are clearly outgunned, as they do not have (to my knowledge) any naval or air capabilities, as well as a small, if not negligible amount of artillery. They are being pushed back east and will likely be forced to flee the country if Gaddafi's forces march to the border with Egypt. In my opinion, the US and other countries should, at least, declare recognition of the rebel's transitional government as the authority of Libya, and thus open trade relations with them, selling arms at low prices. That's what I would do, at least.
Aside from international matters, I'm on spring break. Hooray for a week spent in my boxers.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Well, I've Been Afraid of Changes...
Sorry it's been a while, but I've been busy with Model UN stuff and other stuff, on top of some other car stuff and sleeping.
It's been a tumultuous few months in the Middle East and Northern Africa. First, it started in Tunisia when a man upset over the lack of economic stability set himself on fire. That set off several other self-immolations, and led to Tunisian President Ben Ali fleeing the country with the Prime Minister taking over as interim president. Now, in Egypt, massive protests are taking place to oust President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president for over 30 years, from power. Mubarak has stated that he will step down in September, but that is not soon enough for the massive protesters.
Will this trend continue? Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and Iran, amongst other countries, are beginning to see what looks like talks of the same type of revolution that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia. Both populations are largely composed of people under 30, which means that they are more likely to organize via social networking sites and through other new age communications mediums. The same is true for other strictly Muslim countries, where much of the population was born after the current rulers took power. Could this be the beginning of a trend of democratization of the Middle East?
Possibly. What could also happen is a turn towards stricter following of Islam, such as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (though they are non-violent and have expressed that they will not field a political candidate for president). It all depends on who takes power during the current vacuum.
And now, to catch up on school work.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here for free stuff!
It's been a tumultuous few months in the Middle East and Northern Africa. First, it started in Tunisia when a man upset over the lack of economic stability set himself on fire. That set off several other self-immolations, and led to Tunisian President Ben Ali fleeing the country with the Prime Minister taking over as interim president. Now, in Egypt, massive protests are taking place to oust President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president for over 30 years, from power. Mubarak has stated that he will step down in September, but that is not soon enough for the massive protesters.
Will this trend continue? Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and Iran, amongst other countries, are beginning to see what looks like talks of the same type of revolution that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia. Both populations are largely composed of people under 30, which means that they are more likely to organize via social networking sites and through other new age communications mediums. The same is true for other strictly Muslim countries, where much of the population was born after the current rulers took power. Could this be the beginning of a trend of democratization of the Middle East?
Possibly. What could also happen is a turn towards stricter following of Islam, such as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (though they are non-violent and have expressed that they will not field a political candidate for president). It all depends on who takes power during the current vacuum.
And now, to catch up on school work.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here for free stuff!
Monday, December 13, 2010
Pro Temporum
Finals time has reared its ugly head, so blogging will likely be limited from me. There is one issue, however, to which I would briefly like to lend my two cents: the SHIELD Act.
And no, for those of you comic book fans, this has nothing to do with the SHIELD agency in Marvel comics; in actuality, it is an act proposed by Senator Joseph Lieberman to make the publication of classified documents by an outside party (journalist, newspaper, any third-party medium, including Wikileaks) a federal offense. You can find the actual language of the act here.
In my very brief opinion on the US' Wikileaks imbroglio, I have no problem with them publishing documents, especially ones that offer a better insight into actual foreign relations than that which I read in the newspaper. The documents they leak are not designated as "Top Secret," nor are they overwhelmingly mind-blowing to any extent of the imagination.
Seemingly, the feeling of vulnerability, in every sense of the word, is a bitch.
That's all for now.
And no, for those of you comic book fans, this has nothing to do with the SHIELD agency in Marvel comics; in actuality, it is an act proposed by Senator Joseph Lieberman to make the publication of classified documents by an outside party (journalist, newspaper, any third-party medium, including Wikileaks) a federal offense. You can find the actual language of the act here.
In my very brief opinion on the US' Wikileaks imbroglio, I have no problem with them publishing documents, especially ones that offer a better insight into actual foreign relations than that which I read in the newspaper. The documents they leak are not designated as "Top Secret," nor are they overwhelmingly mind-blowing to any extent of the imagination.
Seemingly, the feeling of vulnerability, in every sense of the word, is a bitch.
That's all for now.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
2012
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
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
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
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
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
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
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
A Serious Man Post
Since I haven't done a political piece in a while, I figure that the one person who actually reads my blog (You) would appreciate something well-written and erudite. Hooray for consideration!
What's on my mind right now is the possible connection between the release of the Lockerbie bomber and BP's drilling contract with Libya. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, also known as the Lockerbie Bomber, was sentenced for life imprisonment after the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people. (There is speculation that he was simply a scapegoat, but that is a topic about which I know too little.) He was released last year to a hero's welcome in Libya due to a diagnosis of terminal prostate cancer. This obviously raised quite the disturbance in Scotland, as many wondered why a man who senselessly killed hundreds should be given compassion at the end of his life. But, that is only the beginning of the story.
It seems that BP, the highly-revered defenders of all that is black and grimy, influenced the UK government's decision to release Megrahi in order to secure an oil contract with Libya. If BP did not already seem like the dominatrix of the world, whipping us while we enjoyed it, now BP appears to be Hedonism Bot from Futurama, basically doing whatever feels like it would give them pleasure.
Corporate greed at its finest. So, what happens now? Well, if I were president (which only happens in approximately 3 of the infinite parallel universes), I would likely cut all contracts with BP, have them fined, and send them to work on the next Michael Bay movie because, let's face it, Transformers 2 was worse than waterboarding.
On a side note, I'm pretty sure those Russian spies caught in the US were the rejects from the KGB, since the information they were searching for could easily be found on the internet. Hell, it's posted on whitehouse.gov, opensecrets.org, etc. They were probably the kids who ate the crayons during KGB school.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Check out my friend's and my Youtube channel at www.youtube.com/uguestsproductions. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll subscribe to our channel because you love us. :)
What's on my mind right now is the possible connection between the release of the Lockerbie bomber and BP's drilling contract with Libya. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, also known as the Lockerbie Bomber, was sentenced for life imprisonment after the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people. (There is speculation that he was simply a scapegoat, but that is a topic about which I know too little.) He was released last year to a hero's welcome in Libya due to a diagnosis of terminal prostate cancer. This obviously raised quite the disturbance in Scotland, as many wondered why a man who senselessly killed hundreds should be given compassion at the end of his life. But, that is only the beginning of the story.
It seems that BP, the highly-revered defenders of all that is black and grimy, influenced the UK government's decision to release Megrahi in order to secure an oil contract with Libya. If BP did not already seem like the dominatrix of the world, whipping us while we enjoyed it, now BP appears to be Hedonism Bot from Futurama, basically doing whatever feels like it would give them pleasure.
Corporate greed at its finest. So, what happens now? Well, if I were president (which only happens in approximately 3 of the infinite parallel universes), I would likely cut all contracts with BP, have them fined, and send them to work on the next Michael Bay movie because, let's face it, Transformers 2 was worse than waterboarding.
On a side note, I'm pretty sure those Russian spies caught in the US were the rejects from the KGB, since the information they were searching for could easily be found on the internet. Hell, it's posted on whitehouse.gov, opensecrets.org, etc. They were probably the kids who ate the crayons during KGB school.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Check out my friend's and my Youtube channel at www.youtube.com/uguestsproductions. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll subscribe to our channel because you love us. :)
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Gulfing for Par
Excuse the witty but obvious pun.
It is currently day 70-something of the BP Oil Spill, or as it is also called, the "Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill" (bit more innocuous), and very little has been made in the way of progress towards ending it. It has become the worst oil spill in human history, and will likely become the worst, if not one of the worst, ecological disasters this planet has ever seen outside of the ice ages. So, the burning question on everyone's mind is likely "Who burns at the stake for this?"
First, BP. During congressional hearings, BP employees testified that parts supplied by subsidiary companies such as Halliburton were to blame (as if Halliburton didn't cause enough grief to this world already); Halliburton shunted the blame elsewhere, and, in the end, no one carried the brunt of the blame. Still, there is confusion as to where, what, and at whom to point fingers.
Obviously, BP is largely at fault. They committed over 200+ safety violations over the past 3 years, all of which were allowed to pass by the MMS (Minerals Management Service). Members of the MMS, if I remember correctly, received over 1,000,000$ in campaign funds and other miscellaneous contributions from oil companies. In fact, there are stories that members of the MMS and directors on the boards of oil companies went out and had parties with cocaine and prostitutes. So, what is the punishment for this mismanagement of power? As quoted on the MMS website, "Secretarial Order 3302, issued June 18, 2010 renames the Minerals Management Service to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE). The name change is effective immediately." Hey, it's a good tactic in some ways; you can't blame an agency that doesn't technically exist anymore. Either that, or coke is a hell of a drug.
There will be some people who blame Obama for such reasons as authorizing the oil spill to "promote green energies" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l9U6Cjodho), or those who blame George Bush, Bill Clinton, Reagan, etc. While each of those names does share a portion of the blame for this crisis, the ultimately culpable person is the American electorate. As a whole, we elected incompetent, immoral men without fact-checking, are relatively dispassionate about serious developments in clean fuel, and allow people who seem knowledgeable to sway our opinions on any subject. Wake up call? Maybe. Call to action? Probably not.
The American electorate is classically apathetic in all matters of politics. Maybe if we paid more attention to politics than to, say, Justin Bieber and his entire life, this disaster could have been averted. Now, in the words of Peter Griffin...
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
It is currently day 70-something of the BP Oil Spill, or as it is also called, the "Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill" (bit more innocuous), and very little has been made in the way of progress towards ending it. It has become the worst oil spill in human history, and will likely become the worst, if not one of the worst, ecological disasters this planet has ever seen outside of the ice ages. So, the burning question on everyone's mind is likely "Who burns at the stake for this?"
First, BP. During congressional hearings, BP employees testified that parts supplied by subsidiary companies such as Halliburton were to blame (as if Halliburton didn't cause enough grief to this world already); Halliburton shunted the blame elsewhere, and, in the end, no one carried the brunt of the blame. Still, there is confusion as to where, what, and at whom to point fingers.
Obviously, BP is largely at fault. They committed over 200+ safety violations over the past 3 years, all of which were allowed to pass by the MMS (Minerals Management Service). Members of the MMS, if I remember correctly, received over 1,000,000$ in campaign funds and other miscellaneous contributions from oil companies. In fact, there are stories that members of the MMS and directors on the boards of oil companies went out and had parties with cocaine and prostitutes. So, what is the punishment for this mismanagement of power? As quoted on the MMS website, "Secretarial Order 3302, issued June 18, 2010 renames the Minerals Management Service to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE). The name change is effective immediately." Hey, it's a good tactic in some ways; you can't blame an agency that doesn't technically exist anymore. Either that, or coke is a hell of a drug.
There will be some people who blame Obama for such reasons as authorizing the oil spill to "promote green energies" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l9U6Cjodho), or those who blame George Bush, Bill Clinton, Reagan, etc. While each of those names does share a portion of the blame for this crisis, the ultimately culpable person is the American electorate. As a whole, we elected incompetent, immoral men without fact-checking, are relatively dispassionate about serious developments in clean fuel, and allow people who seem knowledgeable to sway our opinions on any subject. Wake up call? Maybe. Call to action? Probably not.
The American electorate is classically apathetic in all matters of politics. Maybe if we paid more attention to politics than to, say, Justin Bieber and his entire life, this disaster could have been averted. Now, in the words of Peter Griffin...
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)