The Politics of Mike

"Democrats want every day to be April 15, Republicans want every day to be July 4."

I'm a fairly political person, and this is a highly personal indulgence of my thoughts/beliefs. If you've got thoughts of any kind on this page, please feel free to email them to [email protected]. I like discussing politics, even if you think Michael Moore has a few valid points.

My attempts at not being a fire-breathing Republican are somewhat spastic and seem to immediately devolve into another round of "Everything That's Wrong with the Democrats." So I'll try again not to do that here. I tend to vote Republican, I voted for "W", and I'll do so again in November. I mean, look at the opponent. In 2000 it was Albert "Mr. Personality" Gore, and in 2004 it's going to be John "I voted for the bill before I voted against it" Kerry. Sorry, John. You voted against it. We can go look at the Senatorial vote records if you want......

First off, I do NOT like John Kerry. He's a lying sack of hippo shit (apologies to all the hippos on this rock) that is unable to choose an issue and stick with it, although he has been pretty consistant as far as "I don't have a clue what the fuck I would do in Iraq, but Bush is wrong" rhetoric. Wonderful. Another Democrat more interested in talking about what's wrong than in offering solutions. Oops, there I go again.

So. Take the issues one at a time. According to the pollsters, the two major issues in this election are the economy and homeland security/war on terror.

Homeland security. As a whole, the Republicans are far better equipped to handle this. Look at the legacy of Clinton and terrorism. WTC is bombed (February 1993, 5 Americans killed), war in Somalia (October 1993; 18 American soldiers killed), American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed (August, 1998; 12 Americans killed), USS Cole bombed (October, 2000; 17 American soldiers killed). Clinton lobbed missiles into Afganistan ONCE (and the missiles did nothing, aside from leaving big craters in the ground). The idea of treating the matter as a military, or, failing that, even a foreign policy issue was out of the question.

Now granted, none of these attacks were on the scale of 9/11, but they were essentially just swept under the rug. There are several other attacks that might have been made by Al-Quida that I have not listed. Al-Quida had declared war on America, and we, guided by our "great" president, did nothing.

I'm not real sure where I'm going with this, aside from pointing out that Clinton (hardcore Democrat) was in no way tough on terrorism.

On a related note: Iraq. Right now Kerry and the other hardcore Democrats (and all the nuts in Hollywood) are beating the drum on the lack of WMD's in Iraq. True. No WMD's have been found in Iraq. This means one of three things:

There were no WMD's in Iraq.
There were WMD's in Iraq, and have been moved (Syria is likely).
There were WMD's in Iraq, and haven't been found.

If one is true, and no WMD's were in Iraq, then the entire globe was wrong. Everyone, EVERYONE, from W., to Hans Blix (the UN Head Weapons Inspector, in charge of the weapons inspections in Iraq), France, Germany, etc. etc. KNEW the WMD's were there. Hussein, by not allowing inspectors, reinforced this. Why won't you let them in if you've got nothing to hide? On top of that, we have found "medical labs" that were perfectly equipped to make them again. The means to make them is just as bad as having them. If two is true, and the weapons were moved, Syria seems to be the logical choice, there were convoys crossing the border that we didn't interfere with for fear of killing civillians (we didn't know what was in the convoys, and still don't). This also translates into some other problems. Syria is another supporter of terrorism, along with Jordan, Iran, Syria, N. Korea, Libya(though they seem to have been cowed by our campaign in Iraq, giving up on weapons programs right after Hussein was captured), and several other, mostly middle-eastern nations. If three is the case, the free world is in deep, deep shit. I guarantee they aren't there anymore, we can just wait for them to be used on such "decadent" nations as us, Britain, France (remember, they're evil for not allowing religious headgear in public schools), Poland, Russia (don't forget the ongoing campaign against Chechnya), and any other nation that supported any campaign in the Middle-east in history. Which basically means everyone. Greece, don't forget Alexander the Great in the 300's BC.

WMD's were NOT the only reason for liberating Iraq. Hussein's starwalt human rights record would be another, his history of invading neighboring countries, and his support of terrorism (he announced to the world that he was giving thousands of dollars to the families of terrorists in Israel). WMD's and 9/11 were the "smoking gun", but there were plenty of reasons for the campaign anyway.

Furthermore, liberals need to get the fuck off of Israel's back. They've been dealing with terrorism pretty much since 1947 (when Israel was formed). Terrorists detonate bombs on commuter busses, kill schoolchildren, people in clubs, businessmen, westerners, and other Muslims with complete disregard for who they're killing. Israel has finally started retaliating under Sharon. Good. Hopefully Israel will find a way to name Arafat (the Nobel Peace Prize laureate) a target and get him. It won't stop the attacks, but it will help avenge the hundreds of utterly innocent people going about their normal lives. By not wholeheartedly supporting Israel, Bush has, to a degree, reneged on his global war against terrorists and those who harbor them. Were that rhetoric true, we'd be in the West Bank with American M1's, as well as American-built Israeli M1's. To a degree, though, we do seem to be fighting them, just not in Israel. Since "Iraq II: The Ouster of Saddam" started, the number of attacks in Israel has fallen to almost zero. They all appear to be in Iraq, trying to destabilize the government there. Hopefully, when most of the security duties are transferred to Iraqis, and the bombs are killing Muslims and not US soliders, well, hopefully, the PLA, Hamas, Al-Quida, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade will lose support througout the Middle East.

Economy. The economy is the other major issue in the campaign. Here the Republicans are at a disadvantage thanks to the enormous Democrat spin machine. According to the Dems, the boom (bubble is more like it) of the 90's is due to Clinton. Truth is, the bubble was thanks to the Democrats, the boom was thanks to Reagan. The trickle-down theory and Laffer Curve have become central to Republican economic theory. It's a fairly simple idea: lower taxes, people have more money to spend, businesses have more money to spend and hire new employees, and the economy grows, whereas raising taxes, after a point, not only lowers national productivity, actually DECREASES total taxes collected. Not covered under the Laffer curve, but still true, is that lower taxes stimulate the economy, raising taxes to pay off the deficit and fund more social programs causes the economy to stagnate. It's a lot more complicated than this, and while I understand most of it, it's a hell of a lot harder to describe. Especially without rambling on as I tend to do. And here, as I'm not an economist, nor am I all that great at math, I will let it rest. Do a Google search for "Laffer Curve" or "trickle-down economics" if you want to learn more.

Abortion. This is one that seems to run any politician, of any faith, and any ideology, up the wall. It's simple, OK? A newly conceived zygote can be aborted. It's not a human, OK? You (assuming you're not an alien or something), and I, and the baby you're bouncing (or not) on your knee are human. I don't know when a zygote (or fetus, or whatever) becomes a human, but I'm reasonably sure it's not in the first 3 months. Can't eat, can't breathe, can't live outside of it's mothers womb. At this point it's a parasite, not a baby, nor is it human. Woman's body. Her choice. And if you're against it for religious reasons, then don't do it yourself. You have no right to tell someone else whether she should be allowed to have the little disaster (that's what many of these abortions will be if she can't abort) or not. It's not your job to "save" her. This is between her and God. Notice that your name is not there. If she's going to hell, that's her problem. NOT YOURS.

Gun Control. This is a bit tricky to explain. I can't use myself as an example, because I'm not exactly the most stable person in the world. A normal person, not depressed, not an alcoholic, not an addict, not with a major case of rage, not depressive, etc. should be allowed to own any damn weapon he/she wants. Here's an example: Call him Joe. Joe is a great citizen. Married, has 2.3 children. Lives in a nice two-level house with a two car garage in suburbia. Doesn't do drugs, doesn't have a criminal record of any sort. Always votes. Serves jury duty with glee. Joe wants to buy a WWII-vintage 88mm anti-aircraft gun. The US government says no, inspite of the right to bear arms in the constitution. 10 years later, a Facist government under John Ashcroft takes over, with help from the military and enslaves the entire country. Citizens like Joe would have fought back, but had no chance, since the government wouldn't let them have big guns. THE PEOPLE NEED THE ABILITY TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT. I'm not really sure where the line can be drawn here, between people allowed to own mortars, tanks, etc. and those not allowed to own them, but somehow one needs to be drawn.

The Environment. First, global warming is not a proven thing. I'm not saying it's not there, I'm saying it's not proven. Probably can't be, either. Earth has gone through many climate changes through history. Both warming and cooling. There's even a fairly credible theory out there that global cooling may result if we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. I don't know about that, I'm not a climatitian. Here's my problem. Democrats want us to do away with coal, gas, and other polluting, greenhouse gas-creating power plants. Good enough. Unfortunately, they also want us to do away with nuclear power plants. So where does the power come from? The sun? So we spend billions and billions and billions of dollars to create giant solar power collection plants. Great. Two major problems here. First, where do we build them? Remember, the Democrats don't want to cut down our friends the trees, and the plains are where the buffalo live!! Solar plants take up huge amounts of land and produce very little power compared to more conventional plants. Nuclear power is efficient. It produces very little waste (none into the air, a bit of radioactive waste that can be safely buried). But remember Cherynobyl and Three-Mile-Island; TWO accidents in 50 years of nuclear power!! Nuclear plants are dangerous!! Properly maintained and regulated, nuclear plants are totally safe. You don't have to kill many trees, and you don't have to take away the natural habitat of the prarie dog to build them. We have the technology available to build them now. Cheap, efficient, non-polluting power.

Then there's the Kyoto Treaty. W took a lot of flack for reneging on this. Fact is, Clinton never signed anything, never sent anything to Congress for ratification. It's a bad idea. It limits what we can do, what we can release into the atmosphere, but does NOT limit Africa, Asia (including India and China, two of the world's biggest polluters), and the rest of the developing world. So the vast majority of the world can pollute as they choose, but a small handful of nations get very strict limits on what is acceptable. Most of western Europe (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Britain) has not ratified the treaty either. Why? It's a fucking stupid idea that sounds good on paper.

Public Schools/School Funding. I'm torn here. On the one hand, we've got 5th graders that can't read "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie." On the other hand, most kids seem to do alright. I don't think pouring more taxpayer money on the problem is going to make kids any smarter or do better on standardized tests. Textbooks are a major problem (this is especially true in history, my favorite subject).

OK, tangent time. History is an incredibly important (and interesting) subject. Learning about the Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Indians (both the American kind and the Asian kind), Persians, Chinese, Russians, the Muslim Empire, renaissance Europe, Japan, or the modern world (1600's to present) provides more drama and a better storyline than any novel, movie, or comic book. The way it's taught in history class, it comes off as boring and pre-determined. Text books assume an omnipotent tone, presenting history as predetermined that the good guys would win out in the end. The Battle of Marathon, Battle of Poitiers, (possibly the only major French victory in world history), and the formation of the United States are just some of the items that history books sanitize and present without emotion.

Two years later he launched his second attempt, again by sea but with a more southernly route. This expedition resulted in the Battle of Marathon. During the two year interval he sent heralds to the Greek city-states. The heralds, as was the custom, asked for "earth and water" as a token of submission. Many of the Greek city-states acquiesced but many did not, including the two most important, Sparta and Athens. The Athenians threw the heralds off the Acropolis and the Spartans threw them down a well where there was plenty of "earth and water". The Athenians even executed the unfortunate translator of the Persian demand for defiling the Greek language.

This was borrowed without permission from Ancient Mesopotamia. This is a bit more effective than, at best, "and the various Greek Polis said "no." It shows the degree of the Greek refusal, especially with textbooks willingly demonstrating the pacifist nature of the Athenians. Incidentally, at the battle of Marathon, the Greeks were outnumbered by at least 3-1. Superior tactics and timing won the day.

The West's overall acendency (at least militarily and, through that, politically) over the rest of the world owes largely to it's organization (a legacy of the Romans). Western armies have been, as a rule, throughout history, better organized and with better morale than armies from other parts of the world. Yet another fact the textbooks leave out, for reasons below. Textbooks dole out history in such a surgical environment that everything seems natural. Predestined. The fact is that the West has effectively dominated everywhere they've stepped foot since the Age of Colonization. Yes, that includes Vietnam. We could have won the day there (whether we should have even been there or not is another issue) after the Tet Offensive of 1968, which generated horrible reports at home, but apparently generated worse reports amongst the Viet Cong. It was, to say the least, a devastating campaign for them. First time they came out and fought Western style battles, and they got butchered. Attacking entrenched positions, they were slaughtered, due in no small part to clear fields of fire, fixed and well sighted mortars/artillery, etc. However, the American casualty lists came back, and since the Viet Cong casualties had been exaggerated in the past, they must have this time, or so the thought was at home. Had we resumed the offensive after the Tet "truce", we may have bludgeoned the Viet Cong so badly that Vietnam today would be free. Of course, this may have convinced China to get involved militarily... But my point here is, however circumspectly I get there, that this is NOT TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. No history class (at least not one in public schools) even gets to the Vietnam war. I took World History in 9th grade, we didn't even get to WWII, much less Vietnam.

My case against history in school goes much, much deeper than this, email me at [email protected] to know more. My case against school in general goes even deeper than this. I've spent my fair share of time in chatrooms, and kids that are TRYING to use proper English can't do it. I'm not perfect here either, but I at least spell most words correctly, and get most of my grammar right too. I attribute this far more to reading than to English class. With the exception of The Phantom Tollbooth and my love of Shakespeare, nearly all of English was useless to me. I still can't tell you what a gerund is, and I don't particularly care. It's not important. I *think* they're words that you add a "ly" to. Like conspicuously. I learned more about the English language in a year and a half of Latin than I ever did in 10 years of English class. Furthermore, English literature is a joke. Either you're going to like Ernest Hemingway, Charles Dickens, et. all or you're not. Requiring kids to read multiple long-winded stories/poems by these people is not going to change that. It's going to continue to convince them that learning is a waste of time. One book/selection of poems is enough. If a kid wants to read more, he'll seek it out. If he's not interested, he'll go through the motions and forget it as soon as the grade is given.

Fortunately, science/math is better taught. Math works from the principle of apples (as in, I have 5 apples, and need to feed them to 9 people, how many apples does each person get?) up to about pre-algebra. From there it gets a bit abstract, though if you understand your multiplication/division (and some don't even understand adding negatives to positives, I know, I started off middle school/junior high in a "normal" math class). The very idea that otherwise "average" students can't, by the time they're eleven, understand that if you have five apples and add one less (giving you thus, 5-1=4) you get only four apples, is a serious indictment of our education system. I floundered in Algebra and Algebra II. I admit it. Something about it didn't make sense. I excelled in Geometry though. 99 on the final, in spite of doing maybe 10 minutes of non-classroom (read: homework/studying) all year. Science is much harder for me to comment on than the above. I didn't take much science, didn't care about what I did take. Volcanoes result from the movements of plate tectonics (not God, nor magic, as some high school graduates think). Humans did NOT evolve from apes (both humans and apes evolved from some species in the past).

The point is, these are accepted (if you're not a Christian) facts in the case of science, and fact in the case of history, and common sense in the case of English literature. Forcing kids to listen to people two or three times their age about these things makes them hate learning.

Eventually, education is going to warrant it's own page, as I have far too many thoughts on this to articulate in a politics page. Untll I reach that point, this will have to suffice.

I'm working on a religion page to deal with my views concerning religion. I'll add this page, with a link here and on every other page when I'm happy with it; until then, consider me an athiest-leaning-agnostic. I promise this page will be up in the next three weeks.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws