Part 2 of a Politics Series

Continuing with my 2008 campaign commentary... This was interesting for me, as I actually learned a lot about the candidates and what they stand for.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Of course, Ron Paul most likely won't get the Republican nomination-- and the main candidate, Rudy Giuliani, isn't really the kind of person I would vote for:

1. In the past, he has used government money to build massive stadiums in New York. While it's not like he'll do that in DC it's a bad sign in terms of fiscal policy.

2. He'd be willing to go to war with Iran just to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. I don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons, but it's hardly the US's job to decide that. We aren't the Middle East's nanny. Along the same lines, he's been rather anti-UN.

3. He wants to send more troops to Iraq and continue the war there. Now, the current system is not working, clearly, and I find it problematic that a potential Commander in Chief would support a system that isn't working.

4. He likes Bush's idea of domestic surveillance. BAH. I have nothing to hide (unless my discussing plans for the evening is a terrorist plot) but it's still an invasion of privacy.

5. He likes education vouchers. I'd prefer to make the public schools we have better than to just give parents permission to pick whatever school they want on the taxpayer's dime. Exceptions are of course important for children at the extremes of the spectrum (the uber-geniuses who are doing calculus in the third grade and the developmentally challenged kids who are focusing on learning how to communicate their basic needs obviously can't be easily integrated even into a good public school) but most kids getting vouchers would be average kids like me who just need a decent, well-funded, well-STAFFED public school.

6. He wants to allow prayer in school and more importantly, the posting of the Ten Commandments and other such documents focusing on a certain faith. I view this as a violation of the first amendment because it's saying that one religion is "best" in the eyes of the government. I guess I wouldn't mind posting the Ten Commandments, as long as Hammurabi's Law, the eight precepts of Buddhism, and the five pillars of Islam are next to it. As for prayer in schools, private prayer and moments of silence are one thing, but a public school should not call such moments "prayer" or lead groups in prayer.

7. He is opposed to medical marijuana. As a firm opponent of drugs I say make them all legal, at LEAST medical marijuana.

8. He has stated that he approves of radically conservative Supreme Court judges like Scalia. Which means that he might appoint someone similar.

9. He believes in executive authority, which is just scary. A president should NEVER believe in executive authority. Bush believes in executive authority. How's that working out for us?

I like that he is pro-choice, he accepts evolution as fact and thus would likely be in favor of requiring public schools to teach it, he is in favor of guaranteeing certain rights for homosexuals, he supports stem cell research, and he believes in global warming. However, I think his stance on executive authority, his approval of conservative judges, and his views on domestic surveillance and his approval of the Iraq war would be too much for me.

Part 1 of a Politics Series

I'm gonna be doing a little series on how I feel about politics now, and then another one in a year or so when it actually matters...

-------------------------------------------------------------

Since I usually identify myself as a libertarian, everyone's been saying I should vote for Ron Paul. It's unlikely. My biggest concerns with him are:

1. Against gay marriage and adoption, and in favor of "don't ask, don't tell. Admittedly with a Democratic Congress he wouldn't be able to do a lot of damage. But he could block legislation that could secure rights for homosexuals, even if it doesn't involve federal money. He wouldn't try to ban gay marriage at a federal level, but at the same time he wouldn't allow laws that would prevent states from invading people's private lives. I know it won't happen for a long time, but we really need a constitutional amendment saying that the government cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, same as we needed one that said they couldn't do it on the basis of race (There's not enough discrimination against women any more to warrant making that an amendment).

2. No federal money for schools. The one way in which I am really, truly not libertarian is that I think that we need to provide for children and the mentally handicapped or ill. But again, it's unlikely he would be able as president to decimate the federal school funding system, and on top of that at least he would push to repeal No Child Left Behind.

3. Anti-abortion. But he's agreed to leave the question of abortion to the states, which is something. With a Democratic Congress, which we will most likely have, that wouldn't be too disastrous.

4. He opposes the UN.


However, I agree with his fiscal and international policy ideas, and the concepts of state's rights and minimal intervention at the federal level. I've always felt that the only thing the federal government should enforce on the states are basic human rights and equality, and if necessary, protections for minors and the mentally handicapped/ill. Ideally the states would take care of the minors and mentally ill themselves, but they don't.

But I most likely won't vote for Ron Paul because of his stance on the rights of homosexuals, and I wouldn't vote for him anyway unless it looked like my vote didn't really matter in terms of keeping the religious right out of office.

Israel and Palestine

I've noticed something, in reading online forums and in talking to people. Very few issues are as hotly debated as that of Israel and Palestine. Threads on this topic are more vehemently debated than gay marriage. I think this is because in any given group, people tend to be either staunchly conservative, staunchly liberal, or moderate and not particularly opinionated on subjects like homosexuality, feminism, racism etc. But 90% of the people who know more about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict than the name have an opinion on it, and your normal political alliances don't really apply-- it's not like conservatives are pro-Israel and liberals are pro-Palestine or vice-versa. If it's at all important to them, it's REALLY REALLY so.

Of course, the time to really worry is if they're truly, deeply passionate about it, because then they will be furious if you disagree. I've discovered a system for knowing when not to talk about the conflict:

-If you believe that Palestine is right, or that Palestine might have some decent points of grievance, don't talk to someone who is Jewish, of Jewish ancestry, or has ever expressed any anti-Muslim opinions.

-If you believe that Israel is right, or that Israel might have some decent points, don't talk to anyone who is Muslim, anti-Semitic, or a conspiracy theorist because WHY are 90% the conspiracy theorists anti-semitic too?? Must be because "the Jews control the banks and the media" and all that jazz.

This causes a problem for me, because since I am not part of a major religion and the one I was loosely raised as is secular Protestant, I actually have a much more impartial view than most people I talk to. I think both have grievances, because I believe that the UN had no right to make Israel a country all those years ago and encourage Jews to move there, so the Palestinians have a legitimate complaint, especially since many laws are biased against them. At the same time, that doesn't give them the right to terrorize the Jewish people any more than living there gives the Jews the right to "fight back." The Israelis have a legitimate complaint in that all their neighbors are ready to kill them, they're much more progressive and can better handle the land than most of the Palestinians, and they've been there for so long it's not fair to kick them out.

Besides, everything in the Middle East is tied up with religion. You can't kick anyone out. And they can't live together, clearly. At this point the two groups have pretty much equal claims to the land, whatever they may want to do with it-- and although I know Palestine would enact Sharia law, I still say that it was their land to begin with and they have equal claim to it.

If I were Empress of the World... I'd wall off all the major holy sites. Jerusalem especially. Completely wall it off. Then impose martial UN law over the land, saying it no longer belongs to any nation. Ban Jews or Muslims or anyone who is known to have a strong side in the issue from that military service. Set up a number of gates, all strongly policed, sort of like the Vatican-- make sure that if you want to get in you haven't a single weapon on you and no history of terrorism. Inside the walls, put soldiers everywhere, with non-lethal weapons.

Then, split the rest of the land.

Make sure there is a clear, protected road from whichever country doesn't contain Jerusalem to the city; then force a mass exodus. Tell people which area is which. Allow the governments to (non-lethally) evict their enemies from their land. Make sure the land is divided by population and if you can, make sure they get comparable shares of the most fertile land. Will people be happy? No. Which is why you police the border like crazy and impose a major UN presence in the area for at least two generations.

Of course, this would hardly solve the problem but it would certainly hold of the inevitable. I would also pump aid money into this new Palestine with certain stipulations-- namely, that it has to go towards building schools and educating the populace (or as I would put it, "making sure you are at the same level or higher than your enemies so you can protect yourselves"), that it can't be used to manufacture weapons or it will ALL go away, and that all women must be educated under an improved curriculum until the age of 18, regardless of if they are married before then. Forcing them to educate their women or forfeit large quantities of aid would lead to a generally more educated populace, women marrying later (a man doesn't want a wife who has to go to school every day and can't watch his children), giving birth later, and hopefully getting a bit of empowerment thrown in with it all.

So clearly I can't just be Empress of the World, I also have to be God, because that's pretty much the only way this would happen. My boyfriend's probably right, just pull out of the region in a military sense, give money to the Kurds, and force major civil war that will drastically decrease their numbers.

Bah. Being an optimist is hard in this world.