Politics, Pop Culture, Current Events and more...
Coming this November
Daniel Craig’s performances as Bond have breathed new life into the Bond series. A franchise that had gotten more cheesy and campy over the years found a new niche with the edgier side of Bond. The movie’s official site can be found at http://www.007.com/skyfall/
SKYFALL will be the first 007 film ever released in IMAX. SKYFALL will be in IMAX cinemas simultaneously with the film’s international release on Oct. 26, and in the US from Nov. 9, 2012.
Otto von Bismarck’s route to power in the late nineteenth century is guided by his family’s influence and achieved through a step-wise path from local politician to military officer and ultimately to a national figure. He emerges from a privileged upbringing with nationalist ideals. These ideals influence his desire to unify Germany and he continues to apply his nationalistic vision throughout his path to becoming the most powerful leader of Europe. After unifying Germany, Bismarck becomes the country’s first Chancellor and solidifies his political legacy. When comparing Bismarck to his American and British peers, his dictatorial ideology emerges with even more clarity. Bismarck’s rise to power, German unification policymaking and actions as Germany’s first Chancellor paints him as anti-democratic and totalitarian.
Otto von Bismarck is born on April 1st 1815 in Schonhausen, Prussia to a noble, land-owning Prussian family. From an early age Bismarck’s mother is a driving force in his life. She ensures he is well educated and uses the family’s social connections for his benefit (Gale, 1994). As a member of a Prussian aristocratic family, Bismarck’s involvement in civil service is no surprise because only nobility ascends to high office. In 1848 the struggle between conservative and liberal philosophies reaches a boiling point and Prussia is facing a possible revolution (Gale, 1994). During this period Bismarck vigorously defends the Prussian monarchy, gaining him confidence with the King, Frederick William IV. King Fredrick William IV turns over the throne to his weaker brother King Wilhelm because of his failing health; Prussia’s monarchy begins to weaken, and liberal legislators attempt to limit the power of the King by claiming Prussia’s constitution grants them rights to control the budget (Gale, 1994). On September 22, 1862 Bismarck attains his most powerful position to date when King Wilhelm appoints him as Prussia’s Minister President. In this post, Bismarck acts as an advocate for the Prussian monarchy in the legislature and controls liberal legislators (Gale 1994). Bismarck’s noble pedigree, education, and successful political career are all key factors in his rise to power in Germany.
Upon becoming Minister President of Prussia, Bismarck sets focus on the goal of German unification. During an 1862 trip to London, Benjamin Disraeli—future Prime Minister—records Bismarck’s words, “As soon as the army shall have been brought into such a condition as to inspire respect, I shall seize the first best pretext to declare war against Austria, dissolve the German Diet, subdue the minor states and give national unity to Germany under Prussian leadership” (Steinberg, 2011). In 1866 he delivers on this threat by provoking Austria into attacking Prussia. Bismarck is able to isolate Austria diplomatically, and the Prussian army destroys the Austrians in the Battle of Königgrätz at Sadowa, Prussia (Steinberg, 2011). The Franco-Prussian War is another occasion for Bismarck to display Prussian military superiority as they destroy the entire French army and capture Emperor Napoleon III. Bismarck uses this series of military successes to cement national support. Keeping sight of his ultimate objective of unifying Germany as one nation and respecting his loyalty to the Prussian Monarchy, he negotiates a unification of the German states under the Monarchy. This unification on January 18, 1871 makes Bismarck, as Minister President, the most powerful leader in Europe (Steinberg, 2011). Through the unification of Germany and exercise of military superiority, Bismarck created the foundation of modern day Germany.
In 1871 as Minister President of Prussia, Bismarck establishes the German Empire and becomes Germany’s first Chancellor (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). In 1873, much of Europe and the United States are enduring the Long Depression. To relieve some economic pressure Bismarck, with the support of German conservatives, adopts anti-capitalist tariffs. Bismarck enters into a campaign to ‘Germanize’ national minorities in order to avoid the problems that come with ruling over citizens with differing nationalities (New World Encyclopedia, 2008). Bismarck is anti-socialist. In a fascist-like move, he attempts to thwart any social revolutionary movement; he bans socialist activities and even has prominent socialist movement leaders arrested and tried in court. Bismarck interestingly contradicts his anti-socialist leanings by supporting welfare programs. Bismarck is socially progressive, evidenced by being the very first in the world to champion national social programs such as social insurance, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance (Social Security Online, n.d.) Perhaps he implements these highly popular programs before his socialist challengers in an effort to take the wind out of the socialist movement’s sails. While democracy is on the rise in America, even though Germany is unified, Bismarck sets the stage for future years of German rule under totalitarian regimes.
Although, Bismarck begins his rule as Chancellor of Germany in 1871, his deep involvement in shaping Germany’s policies as Minister President of Prussia from 1862 – 1890 make him a peer of the 17th U.S. President, Andrew Johnson. Johnson is the U.S. President from 1865 – 1869. Johnson and Bismarck rise to power from different backgrounds, but have similarities in domestic policy. Bismarck’s family is part of the landowning nobility of Prussia—Junkers—and he obtains high levels of academic education, while Johnson is born into poverty and works as a tailor to help support his family (America’s Library, n.d.). Johnson faces a post-civil war era of reconstruction in the United States, and much like Bismarck, recognizes the importance of maintaining unity, although the issue of suffrage for Freedmen clouds his judgment. Johnson is committed to reincorporate the once seceded Confederate States into the Union. Johnson continues his predecessor Lincoln’s work to unify the country showing his commitment by recognizing Virginia’s state government (Library of Virginia, 2011). Johnson’s pro-slavery sentiment causes him to put the restoration movement in jeopardy when he refuses to sign a series of laws—Called Restoration Acts—that are aimed at making the recognition of Southern States’ provisional governments conditional on their ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (University of Virginia Miller Center, n.d.). Fortunately for the Union, Congress is able to override each of Johnson’s vetoes of the Restoration Acts and the reunification of America continues. Although he is willing to put his pro-slavery position ahead of the U.S. reconstruction efforts—a sentiment sowed during his poor upbringing in the slave-owning state of Tennessee—Johnson shares Bismarck’s vision for a unified nation. Bismarck’s affluent, educated and post-materialistic upbringing allows him to stay focused and be more effective in German unification than Johnson is in America.
Great Britain’s Prime Minister during Bismarck’s reign, William Gladstone, is “a passionate campaigner on a huge variety of issues, including home rule for Ireland” (BBC 2012). As leader of Britain’s Liberal Party, Gladstone “disestablishes the Irish Protestant Church and passes the Irish Land Act to rein-in unfair landlords” (BBC 2012). This is important because of the parallel to Bismarck’s dictatorial inclinations. Like Gladstone, Bismarck is weary of the power of religious influence in Germany. “One of his targets [is] the Catholic Church, which he believes has too much influence, particularly in southern Germany” (Steinberg, 2011). Both Bismarck and Gladstone recognize wrestling power from internal special interest groups is essential to secure stability for the regime.
When thinking of the most prominent totalitarian leaders in modern history, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin come to mind. Prior to these, Otto von Bismarck lays the groundwork. His progression to become the most powerful man in Europe begins with his inherited nobility and high level of education. His advancement in in his civil career continues with his appointment to the office of Prussia’s Minister President. As Minister President, Bismarck’s underlying totalitarian tendencies emerge as he unifies Germany. When comparing Bismarck to his contemporaries, similar ambitions of unification exist, but not the same degree of disregard for democratic process. Bismarck completes his rise to power when he becomes Chancellor of the newly unified German Empire. As German Chancellor Bismarck’s continued anti-democratic policies and unrelenting dictatorial actions reserve him an indelible place as a founding father of totalitarianism.
Contributing Researchers and Authors: Noel Conrad and Bartek Gewont
References
Social Security Online (n.d.). Otto von Bismarck German Chancellor 1862-1890. Retrieved from http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html
Encyclopedia Britannica (n.d.). Otto von Bismarck. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66989/Otto-von- Bismarck
New World Encyclopedia (2008, April 4). Otto von Bismarck. Retrieved from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Otto_von_Bismarck
America’s Library (n.d.). The New Nation (1790-1828). Retrieved from http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/nation/jb_nation_johnson_1.html
Library of Virginia (2011). Reconstruction. Retrieved from http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/Civil-War/Reconstruction.htm
University of Virginia Miller Center (n.d.). American President Andrew Johnson (1808 – 1875). Retrieved from http://millercenter.org/president/johnson/essays/biography/4
BBC (2012). William Ewart Gladstone (1809 – 1898). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/gladstone_william_ewart.shtml
BBC (2012). Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bismarck_otto_von.shtml
Gale, 1994. Otto von Bismarck. Historic World Leaders. Gale World History In Context.
Steinberg, Jonathan (2011). How did Bismarck do it? History Today 61.2 (2011): pp. 21+.
Steinberg, Jonathan. (2011). “Bismarck A Life.” Oxford. Oxford University Press.
President campaigning in the Rose Garden (CNN)
Today, while the President gives another campaign speech in the Rose Garden lambasting ‘subsidies’ for oil companies (more on that term ‘subsidy’ later), Exxon is overtaken by a Chinese national oil company as the largest producer of oil in the world. This doesn’t have to be so. The President says he is taking an ‘all-in’ approach to energy policy, but it stops there…just words.
The United States has more oil than China, Canada, Russia and even oil-rich Saudi Arabia, but the President is stacking the deck against his country. He is stonewalling the Keystone XL Pipeline, demonizing oil companies for being profitable (and paying taxes), while propping up failing green energy companies with tax dollars. In 2008, Kiplinger reports the U.S. is sitting on top of 2.3 trillion barrels of oil, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and enough to meet 300 years of demand. 300 years should be enough time to figure out the alternative energy puzzle. But after the flop that was the Chevy Volt’s 23 MPC (miles per charge), who knows? Maybe it will take all 300 years to get the U.S. off of oil. But on a serious note, no matter how much money is thrown at alternative energy, no one thinks it will be viable within the next ten years. So go get that oil and stop being dependent on imports for a resource that is needed for the foreseeable future. But never mind that.
Onto these oil ‘subsidies’. Webster defines a subsidy as a ‘grant or gift of money’. This means one party gives their money (money in their pocket) to the other. So in this oil company scenario, the government is taking money from its pocket (presumably collected from taxpayers) and giving it to oil companies. According to the President’s numerous statements on this (he has been very consistent with this message), these ‘subsidies’ amount to about $4 billion per year.
Here is where the BS meter goes off of the scales: The government is not giving $4 billion in taxpayer dollars to oil companies each year! Oil companies are not getting ‘subsidies’, but the government is ‘letting them keep’ $4 billion of their own money, earned in the free market. However, the President can’t say, “hey, the government wants to stop letting you keep $4 billion of your own money each year.” That doesn’t sell. But making it sound like the government is going to stop giving taxpayer money away does sell, and how!
Adding insult to injury, the government is–in fact–directly subsidizing green energy companies in the form of loan guarantees and in the process losing real taxpayer dollars by the ‘barrel’. Battery manufacturer A123 lost 173 million in taxpayer dollars in less than a year. Solar panel manufacturer Solynrda lost over 500 million in taxpayer dollars and in 2010 GE (another of the President’s favorites) paid absolutely nothing in taxes. These are just a handful from a bounty of examples.
Meanwhile, Exxon’s tax bill was $15 billion (with a ‘B’), which is 47% of their pretax earnings (according to Forbes). This sounds like Exxon is already paying more than its ‘fair share’ and does not even remotely resemble a subsidy. Arguing for a moment these are tax breaks and more money could be going into government coffers, a tax break is still not the same thing as a subsidy. The fact is Exxon is more like a cash cow for the U.S. government than a syphon and Exxon also works to grease the gears of commerce in this country, accounting for even more indirect tax revenue. Chevron and ConocoPhillips who have tax bills totaling $8 billion and $5 billion are also boons for commerce. But Obama wants to stop big oil ‘subsidies’.
So why the double standard? If the government is going to raise taxes on oil companies, then they can at least be consistent and stop betting on green energy companies too. The government should not be ‘giving’ any money to any of these companies. The Federal government’s job is not to pick winners and losers; the free market works this out just fine without the government’s ‘help’.
If taxes are raised on oil companies, they aren’t going to pay the bill. Corporate taxes are a myth because the cost of corporate tax bills is invariably passed on to the consumer. So if Obama has his way as he promises, energy prices “necessarily skyrocket” under his plan. Middle class gas guzzlers that Obama says he is out to protect pay for yet another Presidential political stunt and he blames Republicans and oil companies.
Romney criticizes Obamacare
It’s true. In the interest of the long game, Conservative opposers of Obamacare are better off if Obamacare is upheld in the Supreme Court, where the case is being heard this very week. Now, I have certainly been critical of Santorum, but he has a point when he says Romney is not the best guy to hit hard on Obamacare in a general election. Since Romney has not taken my advice and ‘copped’ to Romney care being a mistake, he in fact is not the best person to take on Obamacare in November.
Fewer and fewer are willing to argue Romney is not the odds-on favorite to win the Republican nomination; Gingrich’s campaign is on its heels and ‘reorganizing’ (again) and Paul, through his seeming unwillingness to strike at Romney has been a Romney surrogate for some time now. Santorum is the only viable contender (if one is even willing to go that far).
So here is the explanation for the headline: If Obamacare goes down, Santorum may actually have a better chance to beat Obama than Romney. But if Romney is the nominee, it’s better to uphold Obamacare, making the economy the main issue and Obamacare more of a non-issue. Conservatives would then have a better chance to win on two fronts, Republicans take back the White House and Obamacare gets dismantled through Executive Orders after Romney takes office. I can almost hear the champagne corks popping at Republican Headquarters now…but not so fast.
The first of the holes in this ‘Republican Dream Scenario’ is if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, Obama likely gains a lot of momentum, perhaps enough to steamroll any Republican contender. Another argument is the general election is not going to be about Obamacare no matter which way Justice Kennedy breaks on Obamacare, after all: it’s the economy, stupid! If indeed the main issue is the economy, Obamacare won’t matter much and it might as well be struck down. Yet another argument against wanting Obamacare upheld is if it does go down, the Republican nominee will have an arsenal of ammunition to use against Obama, if able to fire without a backfire. On this, Santorum’s aim will be true, but for Romney (the odds-on nominee), it’s likely to blow up in his face (pardon the firearms reference).
This article is partly tongue-in-cheek, because of the solid arguments against the ‘Republican Dream Scenario’ plausibility. But prognosticating general election scenarios is such fun…and remember: an ounce of truth exists in all jest.
Romeycare Cartoon - Wasserman, Boston Globe
In this year’s Republican primary, Mitt Romney has backed off his Massachusetts healthcare program by saying it will not work for the country as a whole. He has done this because the conservative drumbeat to overturn Obamacare has been so steady that any Republican Primary contender must oppose Obamacare. Does Romney–in his heart–want to overturn Obamacare because he thinks its bad for the country? Maybe, or perhaps even probably. However, the conservative outcry over Obamacare allows just enough cynicism into the picture to prevent us from ever knowing for sure.
So the question has now rightly become, how can Romney be against Obamacare and not against Romneycare…aren’t they the same? This article is not going to break down all the differences, but instead focus on one similarity and one difference between the two programs. The similarity is the ‘individual mandate’ and the difference is the size and scope of the bills.
Under questioning from many interviewers and opponents, Romney claims he has not flip-flopped and often fingers the length of the Obamacare bill as the key difference allowing his apparent inconsistant position. Many riders (earmarks, if you will) were added to Obamacare to get a passing vote through Congress. Remember our friends “The Louisiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback”? Regardless of whether those two deals actually became part of the bill, since they were seriously on the table it stands to reason there were many other deals of this ilk that did make it into the bill. These earmarks and special deals are in the bill because the vote was a close one and extra votes were needed–not because they were required for a solid healthcare overhaul. These riders have the effect of bloating the bill so it has a little something for everyone (everyone voting Yea, that is). Individual lawmakers and districts were happy, but it’s my opinion the bill (as written) is bad for the country. There are some really good elements of Obamacare, there are some things missing and there are seem things unnecessary. That opinion aside, Romneycare did not attempt to do nearly as much as Obamacare (70 pages vs 2,000 pages) and therefore Romney has a point in citing this as a key difference.
But what about the individual mandate? Romney has a much tougher challenge explaining this one. The best explanation I’ve heard is that healthcare is a State issue and not Federal. In other words, what was good for liberal Massachusetts is not necessarily good for the entire United States. This claim may be true or it may not, but conservatives are not clamoring over State’s rights as much as they are individual rights. Romney needs to do a better job with this explanation, or to my next point…
Own it. Romney should tell the people that he doesn’t subscribe to the notion that a politician must be absolutely, 100% correct on every decision ever made and can never change opinions. This is not human. No human being is that perfect, yet politicians try to convince us of this all the time. Tell the country, “Yes, I supported Romneycare and knowing what I knew then, I’d do it again. But knowing what I know now, maybe not.” He could go on to explain the changing times and he has learned from circumstances and sees an individual mandate as a bad idea. As soon as the country starts mandating the purchase of health insurance (or other products), the debate then turns to how much healthcare is required and the slippery slide begins. This has already been proven out with the healthcare contraception debate that Rick Santorum ‘stepped in’.
Romney should not worry about flip-flopping on Romneycare. But if he continues trying to convince people he has not changed his mind on it, he will have a perpetuating problem in every debate. To continue on this course would be a mistake. Romney has made such an obvious change in direction that any attempt to explain it otherwise comes off as disingenuous. Incidentally, ‘sincerity’ is another one of Romney’s problems so he could turn this into an opportunity. The man needs a big moment where he appears more human. Embracing the human element of learning from mistakes and changing opinions would be a good start.
Rick Santorum
A generally independent thinking friend recently asked: “Will the Republicans be successful this November if they continue to alienate Hispanic voters, European voters, and woman voters?”
Wow, that is a loaded question, isn’t it? The short answer is, “of course not”, but there is more to it.
The premise of this question is flawed. Republicans on the whole are not alienating these groups; however, individual candidates are. It is an overstatement to imply the Republican party’s strategy is to alienate these voters. Be that as it may, some voters in these demographics indeed feel alienated by Republican candidates. The candidate most recently guilty of this is Rick Santorum so VoxPop Column will pick on him.
Santorum is not alienating these voters for the sake of doing so. He strategy is to appeal to a winnable part of the Republican base. He is using conservative social issues as a platform to differentiate himself from Romney. Bad move. Obama’s campaign must be loving this as he watches Republican candidates squabble over abortion, contraception and gay marriage. These are Obama’s strong suits in a general election. Obama has the established populist position on these issues and the Republicans are foolish for bringing them to the forefront. These issues need to be played-down by Republicans and the economy, foreign relations, and energy policy played up. Many more voters can be swayed away from Obama on those issues.
This election is still all about the economy and it is frustrating to see candidates creating ‘shiny objects’ to distract voters from the real issues. This strategy may work in a Republican Primary. But the emphasis is on may because it won’t. There are not enough Primary voters who care about Santorum’s conservative social agenda more than the economy, much less in a General election. Not only will Santorum fail in the Primary, but he better hope this dust-up he created fades before the General because Obama’s campaign will be pouncing on it. For Romney it may very well already be too late to hope for it to fade away; at least some damage has already been done.
There are two big announcements you need to know about the Apple conference today. Two of your coveted recently purchased Apple devices are now obsolete. Of course they will still work, but you won’t want them anymore.
The iPad 2 you just purchased is now on sale for several hundred dollars less than you paid for it because there is a new iPad with a resolution so high your iPad 2 will look like you are reading a week old newspaper that’s been sitting in the sun. It won’t really be that bad, but the third-generation iPad will be noticeably more crisp. There are other enhancements to the new iPad such as 4G LTE, but the resolution is the one you really care about.
Although the iPad announcement was the most hyped of the event, a less-well-adopted device’s announcement may actually turn out as important: AppleTV. The AppleTV is also getting a major under-the-hood overhaul. This new AppleTV will become more mainstream as a result of its new native 1080p support. Before now, AppleTV’s major shortcoming was that 720p was the best one could get. A look at this spec sheet on Engadget reveals this upgrade is literally the only discernible hardware change, but indeed it is a major one.
The entire Apple website shopping cart is likely gummed-up with pre-orders; as of this moment neither the new AppleTV or iPad can be added to the shopping cart without several attempts.
Apple (and the world) may have lost Steve Jobs, but after another buzz-filled release event, it is clear Apple has either managed to recreate the magic or is still riding on Mr. Jobs’ coattails.
MailOnline lands big scoop on Snooki pregnancy:
The U.K. website MailOnline has a huge piece of news this morning. They are actually able to confirm Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino is NOT the father of Snooki’s baby. Since when does not being able to confirm something constitute news?! Our society has become so hung up on tabloid-trash that NOT being able to report on something meaningful is a big deal. Thank God MailOnline is out there bringing home the big scoop!
The Obama administration’s decision to block permits for the Keystone XL Pipeline is indeed controversial. Economically, tens-of-thousands of jobs hang in the balance. On the national security front, there are assertions the US is furthering oil-dependency on unsavory foreign entities in the Middle East. Competitively, the US is inviting Canada to seek other outlets to sell its oil, chief among them is one the US’s strongest adversaries in China.
Blocking this project appears to be political gamesmanship on the part of the Obama administration. There is simply no other explanation to halt a project ripe with as much potential for helping improve two of the US’s biggest problems: oil-dependency and unemployment. Taking such a position can only be explained by fingering an obvious benefit: it shores up environmentalist support during an election year. That seems like a very high political price to pay for this particular voter segment.
Most believe the project will eventually be approved…after the election. Recent news reports now state the pipeline project will start without administration approval on the entire project because there are parts of the project that do not require administration approval. This sounds like a risky gamble. What if the administration–after winning reelection–halts the project after it has started and enormous amounts of investment dollars are squandered. Project leaders must be betting on the momentum of the project forcing any reluctant administration to acquiesce. Risky indeed, but one must admire the chutzpah.
Condon, S (March 1, 2012). CBS News. First leg of Keystone pipeline slated for construction as standalone project. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/5ZrXP.
In the first address of French Parliament by a French President sine Napoleon III in the late 19th century, Nicolas Sarkozy’s takes the opportunity to remark on his position towards the burqa. The burqa is the controversial traditional garb of female Muslims. Many in Western Europe see it as a threat to women and others see the burqa as a free expression of religion. In Sarkozy’s remarks, he makes it clear he opposes the wearing of burqa’s in public. In his Parliamentary address, the French President expresses his disgust with the practice by condemning it as being unjust towards women and “not welcome in France” (Goldberg, 2009). This position of Sarkozy’s is aimed at gaining traction with a far-right French constituency and is therefore a reaction to political pressures initiating within France.
In France, there is a hard right-leaning faction espousing the complete absence of religion in public affairs. That is to say religious activities should only be conducted in private. This position clearly extends into the area of forbidding the wearing of religious garments such as the burqa in public. In President Obama’s famous Cairo speech, he suggests that wearing a burqa does not make a woman a lesser being; this was seen as a shot at the Right inside France and caused quite a stir. The French National Front—a far-Right French party—is also anti-immigration. By standing opposed to the burqa, Sarkozy reinforces French nationalist sentiments and thereby furthers his case for the support of the French National Front party. Sarkozy’s comments are in part a rebuke of Obama’s comments in Cairo but more importantly are aimed at gaining support from the French Right—a pressure internal to France.
References
National Front (2012). Immigration – stop immigration, strengthen French identity. Retrieved from: http://www.frontnational.com/le-projet-de-marine-le-pen/autorite-de-letat/immigration/
Golberg, M (June 24, 2009). The American Prospect. Burqa politics in France. Retrieved from: http://prospect.org/article/burqa-politics-france
Vox Pop Column 