Shut Up And Listen 174

The Peasants Are Revolting

A Rant Against The Denizens Of Millarworld's Politics Forum Who Act Like Mindless Sheep

There is nothing like partisanship to make normally intelligent people the dumbest fucking retards that have ever graced god's green earth. I was witness to this amazing and horrifying event this week when I saw people who I often disagree with, but usually respect nonetheless, show their true colours as ignorant fucking sheep when it was revealed that election officials and the Department of Homeland Security were preparing for the eventuality of postponing the US federal election in November. Now, this is one of those things that is obviously wrong and corrupt. How the fuck is a terrorist attack going to fuck things up? For one thing, a terrorist attack before the elections could impact it in two ways: people will either vote for Bush more, as the sheep of America tend to turn to the almighty president, god's own appointee, in times of crisis, or they'll vote for Kerry, because obviously Bush sucks at protecting them. What they'll do is not known though. Therefore a terrorist attack before the election is basically just a sub-heading of the overall terrorism issue that's already on the table. A terrorist attack on the day of won't do shit except on a local level, unless somehow the terrorists find a way to actually stage a good number of strikes all across the country, and then, let's be honest, fuck Bush and his lot because at that point you just have to say, "Wow, they really do suck ass at protecting us." So, basically, terrorist attacks wouldn't affect the election in any way that isn't already a possibility without one, or on any national level.

And yet we have people defending this stance. Of course, these people would not be defending it if a different person was in charge. If this was, let's say, the 1998 election again and Clinton's people were suggesting this (let's also pretend that all of the other circumstances are as they are today), the people out there saying, "Well, you know, this is a smart idea. We can't let the terrorists win," would be calling Clinton a pig-fucking scumbag who wants to steal democracy from the good people of America. But this isn't Clinton, so it's not an effort to steal democracy, oh no, it's just a prudent idea to protect democracy. And if somehow it is an effort to steal democracy, it's Clinton's fault anyways. Seriously. He's to blame.

I'll admit to having my political leanings. I prefer one party over another and all of that. I'm more willing to overlook their mistakes than those of the other guys sometimes (although, I also tend to be far more critical of them, because I demand nothing short of perfection from the people I support), but come on, are you people really that fucking blind? Are you really just a bunch of stupid sheep that follow the nice leader-man because he's the nice leader-man and the nice leader-man would never steer you wrong? It's just baffling to me that people don't think in a more distanced and objective sense.

This is, of course, but a symptom of the larger problem, which is called "partisanship". Last week, in my regular weekly mini-editorial introduction to the site, I ranted on this a little and claimed there wasn't enough substance to fill a column. Well, thank you all you partisan retards, because you have given me far more inspiration than I ever thought I'd need. The minute you have smart people agreeing with "authority figures" who are basically attempting to do things not within their power just because they happen to be aligned with the same political party, that's the minute where maybe we all need to stop, step back and, I don't know, think. Remember, thinking is good. Very good.

Hell, when the news broke, before I went online, I could have told you what people were going to say just knowing their politics. I was hoping I'd be wrong, that somehow these people would rise above partisan behaviour in this instance where it's pretty obvious what's going on, but no. No, everyone played their parts perfectly. I probably could have written the thread if I really tried. It's amazing how predictable these party loyalties are. It's almost like when you decide that you support a party, they come by, cut open your head and stick in a little chip that is activated when the higher-ups of the party do something that forces the supporter to say, "Must . . . agree . . . with . . . party . . ."

These people need to take a step back, look at things more objectively. Stop taking politics so personally. I'm going to tell you something I learned a while back. This is something that contributed heavily to my cynicism and anger, but, fuck, it's true: politicians don't give a fuck about you, so you shouldn't give a fuck about them. That does not mean don't get involved, it just means don't invest yourself in them. Support them when you think it's right, but keep that support at a distance. Maybe say you agree with them, vote for them, whatever, but do not confuse yourself and your beliefs with them, because you'll get hurt every single fucking time. If a politician thinks they can get two votes by betraying your one vote, they'll do it. If they think they can hang onto power by fucking things up in ways you couldn't possibly imagine, they'll do it. How many corrupt pieces of shit politicians must you see before you actually come to your senses? Party partisanship just leads to you supporting a lot of shitty people. It's like the argument I've often used against people who buy comics by title, rather than by who's working on the title. If you buy every X-Men comic just because it's an X-Men comic, odds are you're going to end up reading a lot of shitty comics. If you support people of a certain political party just because they're part of that party, odds are you're going to end up defending a lot of fucking asshole shits.

Think about it. Please.

Warren Ellis Was Right

A quote that fits rather well in the current day:

"How many more of these goddamn elections are we going to have to write off as lame but `regrettably necessary' holding actions? And how many more of these stinking, double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?"

That's from Fear And Loathing: On The Campaign Trail '72 by Hunter S. Thompson. Over thirty-two years later and America is in the same goddamn place. Read the book, it's good.

Ralph Nader Can Kiss My Ass

I've always defended good old Ralph, because I respected the man. He stood up for what he thought was right and tried to force change in a system that radically needs it. But you know what? Fuck good old Ralph, because he's a fucking scumbag asshole. Yes, our good man here has been accepting money from pro-Republican sources. Legally, it's all cool, but who cares about the law when we're talking politics? No, we're talking about a guy who every single fucking time I see his ugly face on TV is ranting and raving about the corruption in Washington and how things need to change. What he really meant was "I want to win."

I can see my problem when it comes to Ralph. I forgot the same advice I just gave a few paragraphs earlier: the fucker is a politician and is thus not to be trusted. Fuck him then. His entire 2004 campaign is being built upon the supporters of Bush and thus this time around, he is a spoiler meant to fuck over the Democrats. In 2000, he wasn't to blame. People may blame him, but nah. The reason why Al Gore lost and George Bush won was because Al Gore sucked ass. His campaign was a joke and he fucked himself over. He was the VP to a president that a lot of people liked a lot (one that if he were allowed to run again, would have crushed Bush without even trying). It's his fault he didn't get the necessary votes from people who may have voted for him had Nader not been a factor. He should have made sure Nader wasn't a factor.

This time though, blame Nader for every vote he takes away from the Democrats that allows Bush to have a better chance of winning.

Free Speech Zones

Those three words, when put together like that, should prove my argument about how free America really is. Oh, the country talks a big talk, but when they actually have things called "free speech zones" then I'm sorry, you've lost all right to lecture anybody on freedom. You can go on and on about how important freedom is to the world, but then turn around and say "Well, except when it inconveniences us."

And make no mistake, that's what things like free speech zones are: efforts to make sure freedom doesn't inconvenience the higher-ups.

This isn't something like gun control laws in the US where they have a lovely amendment in the constitution that allows people to walk around with deadly weapons and now, people with a few brains are deciding maybe unlimited access to such things may not be the best idea. We're talking about fundamental rights like free speech and the right to assemble. These free speech zones aren't safety issues, as you can provide areas for protestors to protect people like the president without sticking them so far away that any sense of protest is lost.

But that's the problem, isn't it? Trying to find a balance between freedom and security. You want to protect the higher-ups from physical harm, but in the process protect them from anything close to an intellectual challenge. If all they see are people cheering them on, why would they ever think they might be fucking up? That right there is enough reason why you shouldn't vote for Bush: he doesn't accept criticism. It doesn't matter if that's his decision or the decision of those he surrounds himself with, it's the truth.

At the upcoming party conventions, these free speech zones will be in effect, and, of course, they won't be anywhere near the actual event. In America, you can have the right to say what you want, but what's the fucking point?

The More Things Change . . .

A final thought: the new Iraqi president has been seen shooting prisoners in cold blood. At least we know this guy doesn't have WMDs for sure.