If there’s a group of people worse than uber-conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin, it’s the people who comment on her articles. Take sammy316 on this article regarding forced marriages.
This kind of crap may fly in India or any land of perpetual outrage where goats and cattle mean something, but in the civilized world we like our marriages short and painful. Well not all of course, some people do beat the odds. (Emphasis added.)
I’m sure India would love to hear that they aren’t considered civilized.
There is a lot I don’t like about the world: slow walkers, erratic drivers, people who chew with their mouths open, txt-speak, and kittens. Okay, I don’t hate kittens. Kittens with spikes all over them (war kittens!), maybe, but not regular kittens.
Anyways, there’s one thing I hate above all else: the idea that there are only two kinds of people in politics. Everyone encounters it. You’re either a Democrat or a Republican. You’re a conservative or a liberal. You’re a crazy, left-wing, terrorist-loving moonbat or a war-mongering, right-wing, bible-thumping wingnut. You’re either with us or against us.
This is bunk and everyone knows it. The world isn’t black and white, people. There’s a hell of a lot of gray in there.
Continue reading ‘False dichotomy’
Michael Crook, the troll to beat all trolls. You may have heard of his use of Craigslist to out people seeking sex. Or you may have stumbled across his rather ill-informed blog, where he goes on about how he revels in the deaths of American soldiers, among other things. Typical lifeless blogger stuff.
Normally, this wouldn’t warrant much attention at all, aside from the occasional snide comment you might wish to make on his blog just to see if he gets all pissy at you. Unfortunately, conservative bloggers like to reference him as evidence of the evil that is liberalism. They aren’t intelligent enough to grasp the idea that there are liberals and then there are crazy liberals. Crook falls squarely into the latter camp. He’s like the Alex Jones, only more inane. At least Alex Jones backs up his crackpot theories with fake evidence. Crook just rants about something and deletes all the comments people make about it. I mean, what other reason could there be that few of his articles have comments?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it yet again: don’t judge an entire group of people based on the crazy fringe members of that group. This applies in religion, politics, and even social cliques. Not all geeks play Dungeons and Dragons and are obsessed with Carrie Fisher in a metal bikini; remember that now.
I didn’t think it was possible, but the LaRouchies on campus have gotten crazier. For the uninitiated, the LaRouchies are members of the LaRouche Youth Movement, and followers of Lyndon LaRouche, who’s been running unsuccessfully for president of the United States for the past 500 years. Both LaRouche and his movement (some may call it a political cult; I may agree) are known for their rather…er, odd views on things, especially the economy. For instance, nearly everything wrong with the United States today is in some way a direct result of the nefarious actions of some long-dead British author or perhaps group of authors. I’m dead serious.
Anyways, the LaRouche Youth Movement is known for its presence on college campuses where lunacy isn’t yet banned. They’ll often have a little bench set up with posters on the side invariably calling for vice president Dick Cheney to be impeached. Or for him to receive a blow-job. Again, I’m serious here. Cheney’s also the anti-Christ. Or the devil. They also appear to dislike Al Gore and anything regarding global warming. As a result, I’m really not sure where to put them on a political spectrum. I suppose LaRouche might classify as a paleoconservative, but I’m not certain.
Read up more about LaRouche and his cult–er, movement–and you can see just how out there they can be. You may even ask, “How could they be worse?” I’ll tell you: by blaming the apparent death of the US economy on a conspiracy headed by MySpace, Facebook, and violent video games. And the cult of Wikipedia. Uh, what?
Continue reading ‘Oh LaRouche, you silly sod’
There are more than two political parties in the United States. You’d be surprised at how many people don’t realize this. I frequently am. Indeed, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the biggest two political parties so they’re bound to get the most attention, but the general ideas is that they get the attention because there aren’t any other parties to speak of. This kind of thinking is absurd. Not only does it limit democracy, it also suppresses the so-called “third parties”, such as the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. Parties like that shouldn’t be a footnote in elections. Unfortunately, the people of America have turned the term “third party” into a joke, or even an invective.
“So do you think a third party will win this year?”
“What, do you mean like Ralph Nader, that damn vote-stealer?”
Regardless of Nader’s position as thief of votes (I’m looking straight at the 2000 election here), people should realize that their votes are not just limited to “Democrat” or “Republican”. Too often third parties are seen as annoyances, detracting from the “true” parties. This is because the United States has been limited to a two-party system for years. The last time a third party candidate came even close to winning a presidential election was in 1912, where Theodore Roosevelt, as candidate for the Progressive Party, carried 6 states and won a bigger share of the popular vote than the Republican candidate, William Howard Taft. He lost to Woodrow Wilson, but his second place finish has never been duplicated by a third party. Even Ross Perot only got as much as 8% of the popular vote in 1996.
A common argument I’ve heard against third parties is that a vote for a third party candidate is wasted because they’ll lose anyways. Can anyone else see the flaw in this? It’s a circular line of reasoning. A third party candidate will lose because no one votes for them. No one votes for them because they think they’ll lose. It’s self-fulfilling. I really think that if everyone voted for the party they liked most (instead of the party they thought would be most likely to win), the Libertarian Party would get a lot of votes. Most people don’t even know what a libertarian is, though I bet most of them would identify as one (who doesn’t like a small government?). I blame that on the media for inundating us with the whole “liberal vs. conservative” idea. Note to the American people: the political spectrum stopped being a line a long, long time ago. There isn’t just “left” and “right”.
Anyways, I’m just saying this because I’m a libertarian (ideologically, as denoted by the small “l”). I’m not registered with the party (denoted by the big “L”), but I may register before this next election. It doesn’t seem that the Democrats or the Republicans are going to be putting out candidates I like, so I’ll probably vote Libertarian. Wasted vote? Perhaps, but at least I’m voting for someone I like. That’s a little more important than going along with the status quo.