Stupid doesn't begin to explan it.

I've been keeping tabs on one of those pro-war pro-Bush groups that have their panties in a twist because the nation is screaming for peace and impeachment. I just can't stand it anymore. The mindset ranges from scary brainwashed Hitler's youth SS soldiers to just plain stooopid. If you know what I mean.

The rational behind their actions and words and justifications make no sense at all. Its clear that they have little knowledge of history outside of the US, or perhaps just an extremely limited historical and political viewpoint because no one bothered to teach them anything that might make America sound like a bad place, at any point in time. Or perhaps, much like the far right wing fundamentalist religious groups, they've got some wires loose somewhere and are incapable of understanding anything they haven't already been force fed by people of a like mind.

Whatever their problem is, its a problem. There is a difference in my opinion between supporting the current administration, the war, or whatever political view point one has - and quite another to go on a witch hunt for anyone who disagrees with you so you can have a "moonbat bashing party".

Of course, as time moves forward, and more and more people become discontented with the president, the administration, the war and everything in between, the more these right wing conservatives for violence feel the need to resort to typical ad hominem abusives to try and cripple the voices of the rest of the country. This tactic is not a new one, and was written about quite skillfully by Jack Hitt in an essay called "The Marketplace of Ideas"

"The one tactic that has yielded the best results though, is to enfeeble entire arguments by destroying the reputation of the most prominent person making them. The fallacy of the ad hominem argument has been around since before classical rhetoricians named it, but this administration has made it a mainstay of contemporary politics. Al Gore is now commonly known to have boasted that he "invented the internet," even though those words were artfully put in his mouth. By the exact same tactic, John Kerry went from Vietnam hero to wartime opportunist, while Howard Dean was branded mentally unbalanced on teh basis of a single phoneme. After Paul O'Neill published his tell-all book, allegations of treason began to float, claiming that documents he took with him were classified (they weren't). John Murtha is being described as "dotty." When Bill O'Reilly hears an argument he can't answer, he calls the person "kooky" and then announces he will not engage the position precisely because the speaker is nuts. [essay cont's...]"

These arguments are precisely what bother me so much when I read the message board forums and articles, and particularly the blog pages of those involved with these groups. It bothers me, but it also makes me laugh. The idea that they can't come up with anything better than a tired old "commie" insult, or some machismo war cry similar to a gorilla in heat tickles me to no end.

On the other hand, this is how hate groups are started. The sheer paranoia that oozes from these people about the "evil lefties" (those being anyone who doesn't agree lock-step with their positions). The comical rants about communism, socialism, anarchy and the group that really gets their goat, the black bloc, are made even funnier because the person ranting on about it is such an alarmist that they've gotten themselves all confused about who's who and what's what.

With confusion like that, no wonder they support a president like Bush. They have the same mentality. And I don't mean in a political sense.

Also, it should be noted that most (not all) of the members in said group have some sort of connection with a hard-line Christian church. They are conservative to a fault, intolerant to the extreme, and scared out of their minds. They don't like Gays, Liberals, Democrats, Pagans, Muslims, foreigners...basically anyone.

These are the type of people that would travel to a foreign country (OK, I'm pushing it here, I don't think many of them would actually want to travel outside of their blessed United States) and refuse to even try to speak the native language. Why? Because American is better. So everyone should speak American English. Thats is to say, even the type of English spoken abroad (you know, people with the "funny accents") isn't good enough. You gotta speak English! The way we do it here in America y'all!

Then there is the pro war aspect that bothers me. It isn't laughable, not even for a moment. I'm neither pro-war nor anti-war on general terms. I'm anti-this war. But generally speaking I can see that there is a time and place for war. I'm definitely not a "peacenik" by any stretch of the imagination. But I'm also not gung ho about war, should we get into one (that is justifiable).

Its not a football game, we're not standing in a stadium with beer and pretzels rooting for the home team to bomb the shit out of the other team. People are dying, on both sides. People who have nothing to do with the war in the first place. Civilians who get caught in the middle of some horrific war zone...

I certainly don't start rooting for another war before the first one is even done with yet, as some of the pro-war folks are doing. Its eerily Orwellian. Bin Laden is the enemy. Al Quieda is the enemy. Hussein is the enemy. Iraq is the enemy. Iran is the enemy.

I'm sorry, who are we fighting again, and whats the reason this time?

Back to the groups of people who disturb me...The other part that I simply don't get is these people hook up with law enforcement act like goody two shoes, but as soon as the police tur their back, they're assaulting people. And usually women, young girls, or old ladies.

Oh wait, how dumb am I? That makes perfect sense. Law enforcement has enough inherent problems that teaming up with groups like this seems so natural. Like perfectly matched dance partners. I'd wager a bet that these folks could get on with their assault right in front of the police, and the anti-war protester would be the one to get arrested for it anyway.

The blind nationalistic pride that tows he party line so well is abundant in these groups - so abundant in fact that it makes one wonder if they aren't being urged on quietly by our government, if not outright supported by it. All while the other groups are being hit with fines on a daily basis for organizing rallies.

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” Sinclair Lewis - corrected because I royally messed up the quote.

Sure sounds like the current administration and its ardent followers to me.

And there's more....

There is a new law attempting to pass through our "wonderful" system of check's and balances right now, or in the near future that is very bothersome to me.

I'll start by saying this bothers me for several reasons. First, the whole thing is an issue to wag the dog. Its another "side issue" with a purpose of wasting time, resources, and attracting media attention so real issues lose airtime. Second, it is a law that will aid law enforcement in the simultaneous circumvention of our fourth amendment rights, and the stigma of racial profiling. Third, it is simply a further restriction of our rights in general.

What is this law you ask? Georgia is attempting to criminalize the fashion style of baggy, low riding pants. Or, to extend that for a moment, any style of clothing that intentionally (or unintentionally) exposes your undergarments - be they boxers, thongs, bra straps - or even sweat pants worn under jeans and regular underwear. I will now dub this the "War on Saggy Pants". They are trying to legitimize this bill by sliding in as "indecent exposure". Exposure of what? More clothes? Yikes. The penalty for breaking the law of the saggy pants is a $500 fine and possible jail time.

Yes I said jail time.

From what I saw, some areas already have this law "on the books" meaning its enforceable if they want it to be. In videos showing what goes on when someone is stopped for suspicion of saggy pants, I noticed that it was always young, black men. The "search" consisted of lifting up clothing, poking around, and even a light pat down. This is a blatant circumvention of the fourth amendment. No longer do police need reasonable suspicion of a person to search them...they now have the "War on Saggy Pants" on their side, and can stop and search anyone under the pretense that its for public safety against indecent exposure. I'm sure it has nothing to do with racial profiling, and blatant spying on citizens.

Since the folks on the right are so keen on fighting "Islamofascism" and keeping burqas out of the west...perhaps they need to take a closer look at what Georgia is trying to do. They are...well regulating what their constituents can and can't wear, forcing them to "cover up" in the name of decency. Of course these people being criminalized for their sense of fashion aren't in fact being indecent, as no "private parts" are showing. But apparently they aren't being decent enough. They need to cover up more. Isn't that how Americans interpret the enforcement of burqas?

Islamofascism....Doesn't anyone worry about Americanofascism?

The other issue that needs to be addressed here is the side issue of wagging the dog. Yes, this law is a side issue. Yes there are more important things to worry about. But this is important too. Too many people complain about the multitude of less important side issues, but fail to see the significance of them when you put them all together.

Legislating morality, legislating fashion, legislating reproductive rights, legislating marital rights, legislating sexuality, legislating foods, legislating religion....the list goes on. When you put it all together what do you get?

Its OK, you can say it.....fascism.

I agree that we shouldn't miss the forest for the trees, but we do need to realize that the forest is made up exclusively of...well, the trees.

The vote to nowhere

Here's an idea. For those of you who are displeased with the voting process, with the constant barrage of "lesser evils" for candidates or both, let me explain how you can let the government know how you feel, even if its only on a local level to start.

First, let me start by explaining why you should protest the voting process. Most of us know and understand that once a person enters the voting booth they are typically voting for the candidate they detest the least, or the one they feel is less likely to make a bad system even worse. On rare occasions a person actually votes for a candidate they truly want in office, who isn't their friend or neighbor or someone they owe a favor to. This does not denote high voter confidence. This could also explain low voter turn out, and poor choices for candidates.

That said, I have always felt that voters should have the option to actively not vote for the candidates they don't want in office, while being able to caste a positive vote for the candidate they do want, if any. The idea here is that the voter can let candidate(s) know in no uncertain terms that they absolutely refuse to be the particular candidates constituents whatsoever. Perhaps even a spot for commentary as to why they are refusing to vote for the particular candidate(s). It is a deliberate non-vote for a candidate or group of candidates. It would be even better to show the candidates just how many people refused to vote for them. It would serve as massive blow to his or her Ego. Of course, logistically and practically speaking, this doesn't, and would not work out the way its intended to.

Since we can't do that, we are left to either vote for someone we don't really want, or not to vote at all in protest and be seen as apathetic, apolitical, twerps.

Of course, this is not the case at all.

Instead what we need to do is register to vote, get ourselves to the polling place on elections, and get in line. Once we get into that booth or get our ballots, the option to write in a vote is available. At this point the voter in protest should select the appropriate key (or button, circle or lever) for a write in vote, and fill in the portion with "NONE OF THE ABOVE".

By law write in votes have to be looked at. A "NONE OF THE ABOVE" vote won't be considered a valid vote, and therefore not counted, however the polling officials will still be required to read them, they will see the sentiment. If they see enough of them, then a point will start to be made.

This serves two purposes. One, it costs time and money by using their resources. Why should we allow our governing body save money because we are protesting a vote? Two, it creates a paper trail with a very loud and clear statement : We are actively NOT voting for any of the candidates, and are using this as a form of voting protest. If 1000 people come out to vote, and only 500 are direct votes, 100 are absentee, and 50 are considered valid write ins, that leaves 350 votes unaccounted for. After a while, people are going to want to know where those votes are, and who the votes are for. When they (be it the government, the parties, the candidates, the media) see that they are for "NONE OF THE ABOVE" and not for Mickey Mouse or Elvis - the picture will slowly come into focus.

This is a small and quiet form of protest that is perfectly within our rights to do. It will not solve the problem, but it could make a difference. It could certainly make you feel better for doing it too.

As an aside, Did you know that if you caste a provisional ballot, your vote does not count? Provisional ballots are the placebo of polling places. They are given to people whom the polling place cannot allow to vote, will not allow to vote, or to people they simply want to placate and make them think they've voted. Provisional ballots are held for a certain amount of time in case there is some massive problem and every single vote ever cast needs to be counted. Barring an election catastrophe the provisional ballots are typically thrown away after the waiting period - unopened, and uncounted.

Just food for thought.