i liked this story ...

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > The Bush Record: Challenging Rest of the World With a New Order

i even left the double link this time. i am reading this right now. and i intend to read the whole thing, so i figured i would go back and forth between my reading and writing.

i don't know if i have "liberal" leanings or what not. i consider myself a conservative. i have now only been affiliated with two political parties. i was a libertarian for the first five years of my voting, i was without affiliation for about five years, and i registered as a republican just last week (something i am very proud of).

i consider myself a fiscal conservative, but i think that the appropriate application of taxes is to target the higher classes -- though in a way that is similar to the flat tax ... but that's another story. i would say that i agree with kerry on this matter.

and let me again clarify that i will not vote for anyone that is not against fighting the war on terror, and certainly anyone that voted for going to war in iraq ... no matter what excuses are being used.

i am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. and that is that i do not believe that abortion is a good thing. but i believe that is the choice reserved for the people whose bodies are being affected. let's say that i follow the reagan-esque stance of "the government should stay out of a person's bedroom" -- was that reagan? ahhh ... who fucking cares, this is all a tangent.

i tend to have "liberal" leanings socially. though, i would argue that i am still conservative. i believe that government should not make laws prohibiting any of the "victimless crimes" (i.e. gambling, drugs, prostitution) ... taxing those things is fine though. so needless to say, i push the conservative to being liberal. and i go further. i think that all things that are necessary to sustain life in america should be paid for by the government, and taxes (from the rich).

i feel like the united states -- and this is all my opinion, and not my interpretation of the constitution or history -- is a pact between the lower and upper classes. the pact is simple: you pay for my shit, and i don't kill you. the plain and simple truth about classist societies is that as the upper class will always be in the minority. a revolution is possible at all times.

and i that this is a characteristic of the united states because i believe that not only do the rights in the constitution favor the rebel, but that the framers of the constitution had full knowledge and acceptance that there would be another revolution that would bring about and even "more perfect union."

this separates me from other conservatives in that they usually believe that the rights in the constitution are designed with the intent to protect private property. and to them, i would just say, "look at the first civil war, dumb fuck. do you really think it's about protecting personal property?" of course, they are right. and that's cool. but no one ever saw this world. that shit was written before the industrial revolution, before the revolver, before baseball, before cars, before flight, before nuclear weapons.

and so on ...

the point is this: i don't like kerry more than bush. i just don't like bush ... at all. it is all i can do to keep on loving the man. but damnit, i am committed to loving everyone ... even the people i don't like very much.

but i read this article, and it appeals to me and my sense of dislike for the president. i find an intriguing point of view here. i had always wondered why it is that the president seemed to have gotten smarter after the attacks. it wasn't just them. i really thought that he seemed smarter. it's like, if you give a simple man a purpose, it all the sudden knows what has to be done.

i don't know if the president was really guilty of texas justice. you know, the whole "that man tried to kill my pa" thing. i am convinced, however, that the elite of his administration were all about this from the get go. i have always thought that bush's order is "wife, god, country" -- as it should be, in my opinion. and i think that all three fell into place after the attacks. his wife, his god, and his country all were after the same thing. unfortunately, i obviously don't have the same wife, i can't really even fathom his god (it seems too much like a comic book, or science fiction -- it's not my bag, i guess), and though i imagine i have a similar love for country, i have a very different concept thereof. but i respect him nonetheless.

i do think that he is unfit to be president. it's interesting how the mexican president speaks of bush's approach to diplomacy. he says something about not even offering mexico anything. i think that the politics of the world aren't much different than those of the street: everyone knows what everything means and how everything should be done. and bush is acting like that motherfucker that gets shanked in the kidneys.

i also find it very interesting how even the ny times is now printing the beginnings of saying that the president is aiming to make democracy the dominant ideology in the world. and i have said for a long time that this is a crusade of ideology. our government believes that democracy is the only acceptable form of government, and is going to push that forward. the times reads: "contagion of liberty installed, at least in Iraq, by force of arms." like i said, it's a beginning.

of course, i say that bush wasn't motivated at first by texas justice -- though facts may imply something else, as he appears to have come into office with a mission to get saddam hussein. since he has been this man possessed, he has embraced everything that is "texas" -- including the justice.

i know, how long am i going to go on? i assure you, not much longer. i am just having a lot of fun trying to get into bush's head. i still can't really understand this man's motivation. i have found both bush and clinton to be very intriguing. must be my age.

but this is the kind of thing that i hate: on the top of page three, they say that the united states had to react to 9/11. i would say that of course, we had to react, but the right course would be to change the foreign policy that breeds such contempt throughout the world, not declare war. i can't say it enough, justice = revenge. finding justice is the same thing as getting even. again, a whole nother arguement.

i also think that it is a miscarriage of truth to say that because the chinese and indian governments support bush in the war on terror, that a third of humanity support the president. ahhh ... whatever. i am always working the anti-government angle.

i look at china and india, and i think problems. as soon as the pakistani government crumbles, islamic militants will have nuclear weapons. i still believe that the first time i see a nuclear attack on the news, it will be pakistan using it against india, the second would of course be the official shit hitting the official fan. i think that india would fire back in force.

china i see as a likely enemy in the upcoming world war. i think that the two countries are a lot like the sox and yankees, on a date with destiny. i think that the nuclear part will most likely be with korea, unless the path changes, but the big fight will be with china.

i know that just glosses over terrorism. but i still don't take terrorism seriously. sept. 11 always scared me more for the implications than because of what happened that fateful tuesday morning. i knew the game had changed. and i think that bush is a big part of that -- regardless of his intentions and motivations. and i really hope that no one read this whole thing. i am not even sure that any of it makes sense. i think i just love to ramble on. sort of like the end of this paragraph.