The Jose Maria Aznar Post
Jose Maria Aznar. Who is he? For one, he is the funny looking:
...and yet strangely sexy:
..former Prime Minister of Spain from 1996-2004. For roughly half my lifetime, this short, hairy, and seriously little Spanish tax authority lawyer led Spain with a sweet mustache and economic reforms that brought Spain's economy into the 20th century. And then it turned into the 21st century. And then he brought Spain there, too.
He was a close political friend of George W Bush, fostering the best Spanish-American relations since that little war thing we had with Spain at the turn of the century ("Remember the Maine!"). For once the land of flamenco and classical guitar met the land of subpar pop and drum machine. Unfortunately, the friendship would not last long...
Aznar will be known as the guy who handled the March 11th terrorist attack in Madrid the wrong way, blaming it on the radical Basque group ETA - a battle against which his party had made a strong party of their platform - and refusing to change the story after everyone knew it was al Queda.
This is the reason for my post. The above blunder by Aznar cost his conservative Partido Popular, which had been given a clear mandate to lead in the previous election, the election - just two weeks later. Surely Islamic extremists reveled in the fact that 87% of Spanish voters gave the terrorist attacks credit for the isolationist Socialist party to gain control of Parliament and the Prime Minister-ship. It is simply a crying shame that Aznar did not come out and say that at very least the government wasn't sure who committed the attacks.
Aznar's successor, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is significantly less sexy:
I would like to further show how sucky Rodriguez Zapatero is in comparison to Aznar in a battle royal known as the "Spanish Prime Minister-off":
Facial Hair:
Aznar: Thick 'stache.
Rodriguez: Baby face.
ADVANTAGE: AZNAR
Family's Political Leanings:
Aznar: Spanish Fascist Party
Rodriguez: Spanish Communist Party
ADVANTAGE: AZNAR
Famous Friends:
Aznar: Tony Blair and G Dubya
Rodriguez: Leftist Dictator Hugo Chavez
ADVANTAGE: AZNAR
Insight into American Politics:
Aznar: "I did tell the President that we need a lot of Colin Powell and very little of Rumsfeld"
Rodriguez: "We're aligning ourselves with Kerry. Our allegiance will be... for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration."
ADVANTAGE: AZNAR
Finally, Best Characterization:
Aznar: Big nose and the 'stache.
Rodriguez: Mr. Bean!?!?
ADVANTAGE: RODRIGUEZ
We can now see that clearly, Aznar owns Rodriguez, hands down.
...so now you know. And knowing is half the battle.
The Internationally Themed Haiku Post
United States of America
All nations, evil:
Democratic sexiness
Is at your doorstep!
Canada
We're NOT the U.S.
C, A, N, A, D, A, eh?
No opinions, please.
Switzerland
Keep us out of it!
We make bank accounts, not war.
...we'll sell you knives, though.
North Korea
Kim Jong Il, you're an
Ifinitessimal rogue!
Iran's nukes: better.
Taiwan
Cheap toys are made here.
...and we wish we were China.
We're China, you know.
Morocco
Nobody knows that
Western Sahara is ours!
Casablanca, too.
Japan
Kamakazee, yo'
Samarai, ninja power.
Where'd the coolness go?
...that's all for now. A shout out goes to my wife, who despite her claim that she does not read this blog took it into her own power to post a protest its recent lack of activity, which you can read below. My wife is perhaps the coolest person I know.
The big one that got away.
this blog. it could have been big. but it got away.
The Free Expression Post
Freedom of Expression. Freedom of Speech. Has another right been so radically denied and cherished simultaneously throughout the course of human events? What amazes me is the hedonistic ferver which the defense of freedom of expression conjures in people. "Freedom of Expression" is in actuality "Freedom of MY Expression" or, perhaps more appropriately, "Freedom of MINORITY or DISSIDENT Expression."
I say this because after decades of mocking Jesus Christ in the media, four European newspapers publishing cartoons featuring Muhammed have resulted in trade relations severed, embassies set ablaze, and a whole lot of Danish cheese going bad.
This discrepancy (and the recent outbreak of violence) does not say do a lot for Islam... but it also does not say a lot for Christianity. The vast majority of those professing to be Christian are the very consumers who chuckle at a political cartoon picturing Jesus being flippant about George Bush or find it somehow poetic or poignant that Kanye West (the very man who combined the ideas of "Jesus walks with me" and "we eat pieces of s*** like you for breakfast" into a 3 minute, 13 second, multi-million dollar soundbyte) portraying Jesus on the cover of
Rolling Stone.
Querying "Jesus" on the Google Image Search (with SafeSearch set to On no less) produces an irreverant portrayal of Christ on the
second result.
Where is the justice in this? Should not a Christian regard Jesus as the risen savior? The very son of God? And Muhammed as merely a decendant of Ishmael who invented a religion and gained political power in Mecca and the outlying region? If this is so, why do we allow Jesus to be offensively portrayed and then accept violent Muslim protests at the portrayal of Muhammed? Why are we so careful in saving the rights and religions of others when we tread upon our own?
The only discrimination still acceptable in the Western world is that of the perceived majority. And as a white, Anglo-Saxon, evangelical protestant, middle-class man, I can tell you it's wrong. And what's more, it just plain sucks.
...but I guess there's nothing I can do about it - you can't burn down an embassy when the disrespect comes from within your own nation. So if you'll exuse me, I'm going to go eat some Danish cheese.
The Halftime Post
The Rolling Stones are rocking the ole
XL right now and I have decided to post my first time-relevant blog.
Thus far, my observations:
- I don't dislike the Steelers as muchas I thought I did.
- Super Bowl XL could perhaps have the longest combined length of the two starting quarterbacks. Roethlisberger and Hasselback... a full 24 letters. Wow.
- Seattle has had some unfortunate close calls... the TD, the pass interference... it could be 10-0 right now, but they're down 7-3. The scoring line certainly hasn't defined the look of the game.
- Charlie Watts, the 'Stones drummer, is a nerdy, nerdy man. He has far more class than the rest of the band, with his plain purple T-shirt, Jazz drum kit, and traditional griped sticks.
- My wife knows a lot more about football than I ever gave her credit, and she's been watching
not only intently, but with some good insight. She is also an adorable, adorable woman. I love to watch her watch things.
OK, so the game's back on. More on the
XL later.
The Top Five Candidates for 44th POTUS
5.
Former Gen. Wesley Clark (D-AR), He's probably old news by now, but I liked his spin on defense and his moderate social platforms. I'm guessing he could have just as easily been a Republican, but wanted to run in '04, so he chose to become an active Democrat.
Strengths - An outsider to Washington, Generally well liked, Iraq platform could steal conservative votes
Weaknesses - Have you heard of Wesley Clark?
4.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), No, I'm not that crazy about Mr. McCain. But he's a straight-shooter with his heart in the right place and just enough conservativism in him to be a Republican president. He could get congress working for him on both sides of the aisle, making him a formidable politcal force.
Strengths - Moderate platform would attract Republican and Democrats alike
Weaknesses - Could alienate Republicans in either primary or presidential race
3.
Condoleeza Rice (R-AL), An African-American woman as POTUS is enough to expand my worldview to triple its current size. She's got strong southern roots, a strong conservative platform, and a major political liability: George W. Bush.
Strengths - She's black, she's a woman, she's a high-ranking cabinent member of the current administration
Weaknesses - She's black, she's a woman, she's a high-ranking cabinent member of the current administration
2.
Jonathan Edwards (D-NC), I think the former senator would make a much better candidate for the Democrats than Kerry, as well as a better president. He and Wesley Clark were my favorites in the Democratic primary of 2004. Edwards has a great future ahead of him. He's a moderate Democrat, and probably the only Democrat (besides
maybe Clark) who could steal my vote from a Republican. But it would probably have to be a stupid Republican like Jeb Bush...
Strengths - Name recognition, appealing youthful image, proven campaign skills
Weaknesses - Has been out of politics for four years, he may be associated with (the loser) John Kerry
1.
Rudy Guiliani (R-NY), He's got the noteriety, the charisma, and the track record to become the first mayor to catapult himself into the presidency. I'd vote for him, and my guess is that many Democrats would, too. I have nothing but good things to say about his policies as a New York City mayor, and his book
Leadership would convince anyone he is fit to be president.
Strengths - Extremely well-liked, Sept. 11th hero, proven skills in being an executive
Weaknesses - Lack of political experience at national level, rocky personal life (affair w/assistant, divorce, remarriage, cancer)
The State of the Union, Hilary Clinton, Top 5 Things People Talk About Ignorantly
The State of the Union AddressI happen to love how the State of the Union address and the Super Bowl occur within such close proximity of one another. No other time in the year can those passionate about health care reform and those passionate about a nickel defense both have a night of glory in the same week. For me, I get about an 8 out of 10 on the excite-o-meter for both events. Probably only a 7 this year because of how Washington is doing its best to suck as of late and how the Steelers are in the Super Bowl. I didn't really realize how I much I dislike the Steelers until they won three playoff games in a row and I was upset every time.
Anyway... more on the Super Bowl when we get closer to the big day. Today it's the State of the Union. If you didn't see it, here's a quick recap:
- Tribute was paid to Cloretta Scott King
- We'll fight for freedom across the globe
- Democracy has mushroomed in size the last half century
- Places like Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran, and North Korea (I think that is the exact list) need to be liberated
- We're letting the generals be generals in Iraq; they'll decide troop numbers
- Social Security should be reformed/privatized
- Health Care should be affordable
- Money will be going to research and education in physical sciences and math
- We're addicted to foreign oil and we need to encourage alternate energy sources
- We're tapping Al-Qaeda-related phone conversations
- We're doing the right thing.
I think the President did a good job of firmly declaring where his administration is going to stay the course and where there is going to be an active attempt at collaboration with Democrats. I found that the begining third and final fifth of the speech were rhetorical and idealistic, while the "minor" issues of Social Security, health care, education, and alternative energy were what actually have a chance of being seen through. These are the issues I believe will come out of this speech and have the most direct effect on my life.
Rebeckah brought up a good point: If Bush puts into place an act that will make most cars hybrid in the next 5-8 years, our first new car purchase will be influenced by that plan. It made me think about how I'm going to be moving back to the United States when I finish here at Bethany, and the medical insurance we buy will be directly affected by whatever Congress does in the next few years to change health care. I'm finally at the age where I care more genuinely about issues that before held no interest because these are going to actually effect me. I used to be a foreign policy guy... domestic affairs were just needed mundane issues for a politician. Now I'm begining to understand more how important they are.
For the record, the Democratic response to the State of the Union Address was giving to the newly elected Democratic governor of Virginia. Can I just say that I didn't really care about what he had to say? His speech was cold and contrived, his words were without conviction, and well, I frankly don't care too much about how well things are done down in Virginia. What made me completely shut him out was when he brought September 11th into his whole speech. Because the Pentagon is in Virginia. *sigh*
You weren't even governor then. The governor of your state at the time is now a member of the President's cabinent, remember? It is a regretable strech that he tried to gain repore with the listener and political capital from a tragedy that took place a half decade ago (Wow, a half decade ago...).
A Word on Hilary ClintonAparently Mrs. Clinton did not take a note from Al Gore's poor performance in the presidential debates of 2000: People don't like it when you openly sigh, shake your head, and otherwise show physical disaproval while a charming man from Texas is talking. Gore did it in the debates and was mocked for the rest of the campaign about it. Hilary did it multiple times last night. What sucks is that the liberal media fed right into it, showing her when she had a noticable reaction. And what was that crap with the Democrats applauding themselves during the State of the Union for foiling the President. RESPECT THE OFFICE IF NOTHING ELSE. The way Hilary Clinton conducted herself last night was unbecoming of someone with aspirations of being elected president. Just for that, I hope that she does get nominated, and losses in a 1984-esque manner (Reagan beat Mondale 525-13) against Rudy Guliani.
I'll probably make a Guliani-in-'08 blog when the time comes, assuming another Republican I like better makes a run for the nomination. Guiliani is the man. And, thank you to the esteemed Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia for all of 19 days, Guliani is a man who can take credit and honor from the mention of September 11th legitamately. Eat that.
The Top Five Things People Talk About Ignorantly5.
Jazz Music. It made the list not because it is a normal topic of conversation, but rather because 98% of the time it is ranted about, the one talking doesn't know a thing about it. No, "I've Got Rhythm" and "Summertime" do not sum up the genre in its entirety.
4.
American Wars of the 20th Century. That's right. I'm talking about all of the people who want to tell me that Iraq is the next Vietnam, that Nazi Germany was never going to win, that Mussolini was an idiot, that they know anything about World War One, or that the Korean War didn't really matter - which is not what people say out loud, but rather in their silence about it. I suggest everyone read about the wars of this century before they talk about them.
3.
The Boston Red Sox. I'm not happy that we have holes this year, but I am happy that we are focusing on pitching and defense. It might be a bumpy road to another championship, but I think we're closer to another world series win than, say, the 1920 Red Sox. I've always maintained that if you don't know who John Valentin, Dan Duquette, or Troy O'Leary are, you haven't been a Sox fan long enough to not be a newbie.
2.
Canadian Politics. Guilty. I do not know enough about Canadian politics to talk about it as much as I do. The sad thing is, however, that I find many inhabitants of this country don't know enough, either.
1.
Energy Policy. First off, please do not tell me that Iraq was all about oil. What ambitions the United States had in liberating Iraqi oil are counterbalanced by the fact that France and Russia, two of the three largest anti-war cheerleaders in Europe, were both scoring large profits on Saddam's corrruption in the UN Food-for-Oil program. They were the ones already benefiting from Iraqi oil, so what cause did they have to let the United States take out Saddam?
Please do not tell me that there are sources of foreign oil past the Middle East that we should be using. We already get oil from both Venezuela, with its crackpot left-wing Castro-loving dictator, and Mexico, which is about as stable as a two-legged stool. Other than that, OPEC is where there is oil. And OPEC's goal is to get together and dangle a carrot in front of the rest of the world's nose, flirting with increased productoin that will lower prices and then cutting production once again to keep prices up. OPEC's members know exactly how addicted to oil the United States, Europe, and China are, and they know the political clout they gain from their corrupt agenda. People want to talk about rich men getting together in the proverbial smoke-filled room to conspire against the working man. I have good news for these people and bad news. The good: You're exactly right. Go ahead and continue to whine about it. The bad: They're not who you think they are. In fact, they don't even speak your language. They speak Arabic. And they sell oil.
Finally, please don't tell me either of the following:
- "Bush is from an oil state and worked in oil, so he must be driving up oil prices for his own gain..." Every penny that Bush makes is disclosed to the public. Besides, no one accused Carter of a peanut conspiracy, did they?
- "We could have hybrid/electric/solar/water/vegatble-oil/snot-powered cars by now. It's a conspiracy." No, no it isn't. It's much more expensive to make a car that runs on a new energy source. Until very recently, people weren't willing to pay that price. Gas, after all, was just so darn cheap.
What we CAN do with oil is:
- Live with it and realize there is no quick fix.
- Drill all the oil out of Alaska that is humanly possible.
- Help Mexico become more stable and cheap-oil-like.
- Make a personal decision to pay extra for a hybrid car.
- Introduce democracy to oil-producing countries. Voters like cheap oil. Dictators don't.
...there probably won't be this much content daily, but right now I'm unloading on some "...if I had a blog..." issues.
The End
The Obligatory Opening Post
So here I am. The first of February is eighteen minutes old in my homeland, but it's old news over here in the Atlantic Time Zone. I just got home from a stimulating evening of the State of the Union, Anderson Cooper 360ยบ, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. It was enough to make me want to start a blog. I initial concept for StateoftheMichael.blogspot.com is to rant about politics, music, history, and everyday living, presenting said rants through a medium ingeniously set up so that you come and read what I would otherwise be forcing you to hear. So that's the plan. Tomorrow (or, rather, today's) topics: The State of the Union, Hillary Clinton, and the top 5 things people talk about without having the facts.
...oh, and my wife want me to mention that she's right here next to me while I type this.
The End
