GET UR REBEL ON

Does anybody know how???

2010-01-20T16:51:00.000-08:00

so im back to post after a loooooong time off..i see that some of my links have expired for the stories i have written..can someone tell me how to remedy this..how

DEMOCRATS GIGGING THERE OWN RAVE AGAIN!!

2010-01-20T16:38:00.001-08:00

the one, main reason i was hesitant about voting for Obama was his hesitatncy to fight back when punched. granted he did have the heoric news confernece to push back the scurilous innuendo about his relationship to reverned wright, but for the most part until the last few months of the democratic nominatin proces he was always late to the fight when it came to sticking up for himself, with the same tenacity of force as the punch he recieved, when it came to protectig himself against attacks from other democratic opponets, namely hilary clinton. my vote leaned towards hilary, not that my state at the time PA had a say in nomintating the demoratic canidate, thats a grudge for another time, but in the debate in my head around that time i was fearful that obama was to nice and timid to fight in the modern political areana. that he was too rational, that is to say, that he was still under the impression that a rational argument was a suffecient way to gain support for his ideas or that a rational rebuttal to criticism from republicans was indeed enough to sheild himself form attacks. the rational in politics today is dying a slow death merely look at cheney or fox news. i still think hilary would have been a stronger candidate and president when it comes to taking on the republicans and fighting back at the nonsense that fox news spews. do u think hilary would have been mostly silent if some sort of birther movement had arisen around her. i can say with confidence that she would have said something out of her own mouth and continued to fight the nonsense until opinion polls gave her side of the argument a greater percnetage of support. the same with death panels and the like. sometimes a president has to say things themselves about stories swirling out in the politicl ether in order to debunk them. in this sense i see obama as a john kerry type who when faced with swift boats didnt speak up fast enough and by the time he did it was too late. you see in this age of media manipulation and media complicency ideas and stories that would have in the past stayed on the fringes and in the margins are given legitmacy by fox news and drudge. for some reason democrats dont get that reality or are unwilling to fight back(i havestrong suspicions why they dont fight back but that is for another time). obama just doesnt have it in him to fight back at least not to this point. what republicans have figured out is that the electorate likes a brawler, case in point cheny, rove fox news, etc.. until the democrats figure that out, they will forever be political chumps and left dumbfounded when events like losing Mass senate seats happen. it happens when for a whole year we see our democratic president and majorities in the house and senate bow down to republican bullying, succumbing at every turn to republican threats and out manuvered by republican narrative. the political backlash against democrats in 2010 will come not form there ideas or even there idealoigies, but from the voracity of narrative which lacks any roar or power and seems impotent and ineffectual at every turn..

what change

2007-03-05T02:27:00.000-08:00

its been awhiel since ive posted. ive been really busy with school, lerning the strategies of becoming an effective social worker, and work, empowering recovering addicts. alot has gone on though in the workd of politics. dems took the congress. bush has fianlly come undone at least in the polls. but yet what has really changed. if there has been some change then please point this out to me. the dems came to power. but so what. what have they done. absolutely nothing. wheres the big investigations into the war and the bush whitehouse. what policy changes have they enacted. so they raised the minumum wage or have they. i mean the last i heard about that was it was still being negotiated in the senate. so baiscally we got the same ol same ole. the dems promised change and we got none. they are so timid and afraid of suggesting bold change or outlining bold agendas. and they really cant because tehy are handcuffed to big money lobbyists liket the repubs. the older i get teh more i see that change, bright colored bold change doesnt come from washington, and if it does it comes only incrementally, if we are lucky. we need a third party. we need to take teh money out of politics. we should look to Maine or Arizona to see how to fix political campaign financing. until we get teh money out of the game and give every vote signifigance and not just those with money having teh political clout we will never have a true democracy. where has teh call for social justice gone.....its really frustrating.

Bushgate. watergate fucker

2006-04-18T11:32:00.000-07:00

finally someone synthysizes.

very good piece. i wanna see someone mention this on cable news. christ mathews should reference this article on his show. if he's got the ballssss

persoanl pontification about mainstream news

2006-03-18T09:34:00.000-08:00

for those of us who are interenet news junkies like me, have u ever noticed how the cable news sites like cnn and msnbc hve as the headline story on their websites fluff. like today on the 18th of march theres a bunch of protest going on around the world and especaially here in the U.S. but they run the molosivic funeral mourners parade instead. i mean how many of us have thought about milosovic more than twice in the last 7 years. these sites just like their cable stations are jokes. u go on the popular political blog sites around the web whether its a liberal or conservative site and u'll see what really matters to people who are actually interested in the news nowadays. yet u rarely see these issues on mainstream outlets they continue the fluff. Good night ang Good luck was a decent movie although it was blantant leftist propaganda. but the main thing i took from the movie was the way televison news, or rather mainstream media conduct news. its profit based and politically afraid to run the meaty substantive stories that if offered a choice the american peole would i believe choose to hear about, like when congress passes anti american anit security legislation. thank god for the internet. if u count on the nightly news or cable tv new or maintstream newpapers for ur peek into whats really going on in the world then u are mentally blind, not because ur not a smart person but because they dumb u down in an all consuming consensus trance like 1984. its been happening since televisoin was invented and gained popularity. we've been living withn the Matrix all along. time to go play some rage against the machine. Good night and Good luck

ol ashcroft and bloodsuckers

2006-03-18T09:27:00.000-08:00

good timing

poor ashcroft. to his credit he probably was planning opening a lobbying group with a bunch of bloodsuckers long before the abramoff scandal hit, but to go ahead with it shows how souless politicians are. he wants to get his piece of the pie while he still can. i guess all i can say is get ur rebel on ol ashy. i mean i guess most of us if we had the know how would go to washington and rob the town blind and get favors based only on old connectionas. imean if i could be a crook and make mountains of money and get away with it like the rest of washington i would too. im only human.

does jesus love money

2006-01-22T19:18:00.000-08:00

get ur hands out of my pocket

its funnyhow a christian outlet can bemoan a redistributive vicory. i thought christianity was about charity. i guess not if it comes out of pat robert' pocket or jerry fallwell's pocket.lord kknows they need a bigger house or another yacht. they can't afford to pay larger rates of taxes that would then go to benifit the needy in this country. its odd how the christian movement has progressed and moved its followers to the republican party when the republican party stands againt everything that is christian, especially on econmoc isssues, but yes even on social issues as well. and in this article we see how the left has been weakened by the right's ability to frame issues. instead of calling social programs 'entitlements' how about calling them releif programs or security programs that keep seniors from living on the streets after they've spent their lives working and laboring for a large mulit national , mulit billion dollar company that up and decides to cancel pension funds. or call student loans an advocacy program that help pursuade under privielged young people attend college. anyway its very ironic that a outlet called the cristian science monitor would bemoan redistribution. i guess u can never have tooo much money in heaven

mc rove and the new dream

2006-01-21T18:45:00.000-08:00

the pendulum of sleep

and so the master of ceremonies is dreaming it all up again. the narrative that will help u sleep well at night and help the GOP retain control of the houses in the 06 elections. i cant wait for the politiacal season to heat up. will the electorate buy the same crap that were sold since 2002, that the republicans are keeping us safe. but the more interesting to story to watch unfold will be the democrats counter narrative. all of the bad new of 2005 is waiting to be cut and pasted into 30 second political ads and critical sound bytes. to a rational observer the GOP doesnt have a chance in hell maintaining the congress in the election. but then again to rational observers bush had no chance of winning reelection in 2004. so let the games begin. hopefully teh democrates wont fumble the ball on the one yard line. and lets see what kind of swift boat group comes out of the wood work this time. or is that a tactic for only presidential elections. lets get rewady to RUMBLE...

Cheney to the masses "u are getting very very sleepy"

2006-01-20T03:00:00.000-08:00

look into my eyes, u are getting very sleepy

and so the hypnosis of all who are followers and believers in the bush administration is in continuation. just when u thought a loud bang had awoken those who had been put in a trance, cheney seeks to put them back under. after all the scandal of this administration, can anyone say scooter libby,or valerie plame, they actually think people are going to allow themselves to fall back under the spell of Bush hypnotics. of course some never woke up and some others will willingly be hypnotized again. hopefully most of us are awake now. cheney is saying listen we have ur best interest in mind. i mean we may have fabricated reasons for going into a war but now u just have to trust us, we dont need no stinking secret court to tell us who we can wire tap. im going to count backwards from ten, u will feel ur eyes geting heavy....... sleep. leave everything to us. hurricane what hurricane, that was a bad dream. haliburton, i dont work for them anymore, they paid me 25 million dollars when i turned in my resignation, i dont have any obligation or loyalty to them. sleep now. iran, no u mean iraq, thats the gravest danger, iraq, not iran, is where the mushrooom cloud is going to come from. hahhahaha

new prescription bungle by W. Bush

2006-01-14T15:44:00.000-08:00

another bush bungle

poor Bush can he do nothing right? i had a feling when they announced the new prescription plan that it was all hype and no help for the poor. i mean what kinda idiot are u when u dont allow drug price negotiations with the pharmas which would w lower prices of medicines. well ur a bush kinda idiot when u do that and of course he did that. now people who who used to pay zero fpr meds now have co pays and sometimes co pays they cant afford. i knew that when bush announced this plan, during an election year, he had ulterior motiffs. o big pay day for the pharmas. when bush says he's doing something to help peolpe check the fine print and see which companies or interst groups are going to beneifit and profit. never think for a second he's doing something for the poor people.

bill crystal and amatuer hour

2005-12-24T17:45:00.000-08:00

bill crystal

so i started reading the weekly standard online about a month ago. hell its free right. i expected an intellectually challenging, academic quality political journal with persuasive and pertinent arguments against liberalism. boy was i fooled. amatuerish writing aboiltiy from bill crystal was a dissapointment and suprise. wasnt he once a professor at harvard or some ivy league school. david broder is a far superior writer hell george stephanopolous could run cirlces around crystal. lets see, crystal calls some liberals 'hostile beyond reason'. thats laughable does he remeber katrina, abu grahib, scooter libby, etc. events situations that has continuosly undermined the credibility and trust factor of this administration over th last 5 years. i guess after all the mistakes bush has made were supposed to still believe his word about anything. we have no right to be suspicious of bushie. laughable. bush's methods are a 'step, but a careful step' removed from breaking american civil liberties. of course to him the aclu is a threat, which is ironic since we lierals have the so called 'paranoid style'. he's got balls ill give him that saying we have the paranoid style, when the conservsitives have got sore eyes from watching the mexican borders so hard in fear of those aliens coming over to anally probe us. if the title of crystals article isnt the epitome of freuds 'projection' concept i dont know what is. who's the fearful ones constantly on guard of being attacked and infected by the Other, i think conservatives should raise their hands and be counted. Paranoid style indeed, crystal, tisk, tisk. as far as general hayden being a 'non political military officer'. is he kidding does any modern american believ that a military general in a time of conflict is gonna stand in front of the world and contradict the president, again crystal's arguments are laughable. i mean is he really a one time professor, give us something good billy. persuade me that conservatives are smart. and as far as if bush sat around after 9/11 and thought about 'how to aggrandize my power" no probably not he had dick cheney to do that for him. we all know that george bush isnt a conceptuall thinker. duh. anyway read the article if u want. pure freshman year college introductory course term paper. and people actually subscribe to this magazin. hell i could do better than this tripe.

let it roll

2005-12-20T12:47:00.000-08:00

let it be

i wonder how and if the mainstream media will scoop this story up. everyone knows that the bush administration doesnt playu by the rules they think they're above the law. the wealthiest of wealthy always feel entitled to do what they wanna do, they by into the social darwinism doctorine. for the most part they usually get away with it. we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out. of course the msm will have to stop talking about the small plane that went down in miami as if that was the most important story of the day. while tragic, its only a distraction. if they spent as much time talking about the real issues that matter most to the american people instead of marginall incidents, again while tragic, which are meaningless in the scheme of thing, then the public would be much better served.

please impeach

2005-12-20T12:40:00.000-08:00

BlogItemURL>
amen brother
please let this sentiment spread. if only dems controlled the legislative branches again bush would be in more trouble than nixon with all thats gone on in the past 6 months.

iraq is for oil not democracy

2005-11-21T21:51:00.000-08:00

am i onmiescient or what. in a post a few days ago i spoke of the possible ulterior motives of the iraq war. of course i cant take credit for the idea of oil exploitation as a motive im sure many many others have thought that too but damn if it aint true. i wonder if cheney's confidential energy meeting, the details of which are still under lock and key, had iraq as an issue even before 9-11. its after the jump:
iraq is about oil not democracy

congressmen linging their pockets with the soul of america

2005-11-20T12:22:00.000-08:00

more abramoff

politics is geting boring. the same ol same ole. what if every now and then government did somethng for the People or at least something in the Peolpe's interest, instead of trying to fill there own pockets with money. i guess it has always been like this right. im sure lobbyists have funneled money into congress's pockets since before i was born right. thats one movenment that has never gotten off the ground, the anti lobbying movement. theres been civil rights, gay rights, and many other issues that have brought people to the polls to vote. but what about getting lobbyist out of washington. but they say lobbying is a part of free speech. but how can it be fre speech when it cost so much lol. and it silences the voices of those without the means to tug on a senator's ear with money and exotic trips. lobbying is anything but free speech. its time for the anti-lobying movement, and i dont mean some light weight mcccain proposals. anyone willing to join me, im running for senate.

tax budgets

2005-11-18T00:57:00.000-08:00

gotta have them tax cuts

hmmm make cuts to medicare and student loan progrmas or give more tax cuts. it seems republicans are still hellbent on giving tax cuts and cutting programs for the less advantaged. at least dems made them cut the programs less. but me being a college student im going to remeber when the elections roll around, i cant wait. why is it so important for repubs to give those tax cuts the majority going to the wealthiest? i guess thats what Juesus would do. i gues college students, with higher education soaring, arent that important. hahahaa

lets poll him right out

2005-11-17T15:41:00.000-08:00

lets poll rate the guy right out of the white house. hahaha

sit on my poll

who u calling a fucking monkey, u wanna war, i take u to war,

2005-11-17T15:33:00.000-08:00

no there was no manipualtion of the war intellignece. we all had an honest debate about iraq and we only wanted what was best for national security and the people of America. hehehehehe

the spies who loved me

Oil for lies

2005-11-17T15:17:00.000-08:00

it was obvius last week when the rpublicans refused to swear in the oil tycoons that they didnt wat to find out any 'truth' from oil company's. now tht we see that the oil bigs lied
here

what recourse do we have. i wonder how much money it cost the oil execs to avoid being sworn in. i wish for once we could find hard evidence of money changing hands cause we all no it does in some form or fashion and not merely in campaigh contributions. o well. u see the oil execs are just like there brother cheney they love to lie.

plamegate, baudrillard, the postmodern revelation

2005-11-17T13:29:00.000-08:00

so all this talk about who did what and why has got me thinking about Jean Buabrillard's book 'simumucra and simulation'. the plamegate and its political-media web has exposed the idea, concept, of 'truth' in modern politics, though i think 'truth' in politics has always been a postmodern activity. the idea of 'refernt' is always problematic in todays media world. we give the media the benifit of the doubt that they are telling us the truth especially when its disseminated in a source of authority and 'legtimacy' that the New York Times supposedly has. the atricle in the new york times about pipes and saddam attempting to reconstitue and produce nuclear weapons that judy miller wrote is a great artifact, point of refernce, on modern dissimenation of information. When u deconstruct or question as to how the evidence that was being pushed by the administration, especialy in the plamegate affair and here were not talking merely about the joe wilson part but the article by judy miller about those all important tubes that cheney went on meet the press and referenced,plamegate has a whole web of intrigue going beyond joe wilson, as to the foundation of said evidence and what it was founed on u find how thin and flimsy so called eveidence is allowed to be before it is presented to the public as 'truth', 'reality'. the pipes that where supposedly used as evidence that sadam was trying to restart a nuclear program was questioned by the cia long before it was in the Times. those tubes were said to be too small for nuclrer use. the administration was told of this. yet cheney went on meet the press and used the times article as a reference of fact that sadam was trying to build nukes. he knowlingly lied. Why? because what average american is going to be able to find out that this evidence is questionable at best, and an out right lie in the context that the article put the tubes in, was an outright manipualtion of the evidence because the cia had already said that those tubes were to small to use n a nuclear capacity? u see modern politicians know that what they put out as facts usually isnt going to be questioned and if it is questioned, it can never be conclusively proven to be absolutely false because politices and media is an activiy of muddling perception and dazing the average person's notions of whose right and whose wrong. if someone says this democrat is wrong then there's always another person paid to be there to say that this democrat is right and thats allowed on coporate news programs. u have a right and left argument and the moderator never calls either side on their false claims. the muddling of truth is fostered and even praised as balanced. "never again will the 'real' have a chance to produce itself"(simulucra and simulation). so lets take the false claim of tubes as evidence of saddams seeking a nuclear arsenal. the tubes is a 'referent',it's a symbol of saddams intention to destroy us all in a mushroom cloud. the 'referent' in the end turned out to be false in the way cheney on 'meet the press' characterized it. the tube as refernt was part of the case of sadamm as growing threat which was the reason we should go to war with him. what puny facts american politics and policy is based on! so the evindence which we now know was manipulated, since we know it was cheney's office that gave the information to judith miller who then wrote an article in the times about it, and was false. what cheney, the administration, and miler did was an act of dissimulation, some would say it was an act of blatant lying. they passed the tubes off as a 'real' fact. "To dissimulate is to pretend to have what on does not have"(pg3). they had no evidence at all; all they had was a series of facts that they passed off in a false context in order to manipuate our tendency to beleive those in power, who we beleive have some semblance of legitamcy when they talk about truth, that is to say that what comes out of politicians' mouths concerning life and death matters is correct and corresponds to what they, the politicians, believe is true and in our, the nations, best interests. they played with the public's propensity to buy what politicians say when it comes to issues of foreign policy and war, a propensity that was intensified after 9-11. i mean what narcissistic macheavellian would lie to us and get our kids in the military killed merely for personal gain and blind economic and political profit. Well apparently dick cheney and halliburton and the bush administration. but why are we suprised? we all claim to think politicians are full of it. maybe its because we all still want to believe in something called 'truth'. and that truth is really disseminated in the media and politics. hahaha. the disimulators dont deal in truth. they deal in signs and symbols and referents. they pic a sign, say the tubes for instance, they will wrap a story around it, the story we will call 'truth'. when a politician or a group of them, say the republicans, want to say something to gain a political win on some point, they will pass this story, truth, out as a matter of fact. what the public doesnt understand at least the ones who arent schooled in semiotics or philosophy like politicians are, remeber all politicians are wealthy and attend prestiguois universtires or can hire people who have taken upper university classes to school them on sign, 'truth' manipulataion, so they know some things the average constituetn doesnt. take social securtiy as another example. remeber early 2005 when the president wanted to privatize it. then wanted to personlaize it. well privatize and personalize is the 'sign' along with social security as a 'sign'. Are we suppose to take as fact that bush wanted to help people on social security by privatizing it. rememder this is the same administration that used fuzzy facts as evidence that saddam was building a nuclear arsenal. we heard all these 'facts' that SS was going to go bankrupt in this year or that year no one cold say conclusivley what year cause remember its the coporate media's MO to muddle perception. so heres social security as a 'refernt' and around it was a doom 'story' about it going bankrupt and why it would go bankrupt, who it would affect and why, etc etc etc. now im not sure why he wanted to change social security, i have no priviledged relationship with truth no more than anyone else. one could say he wanted to give money to wall street, because some people would say that bush is a big business man. maybe he as a true conservative wanted to destroy SS because like most conservatives he sees SS as an entitlement 'and entitlements are bad'. the point is that we can no longer trust politicians and the media with the so called 'truth'. all they do is muddle it and manipulate it and pervert for political or coparate gain. we live in an age where 'truth is dead'. not that truth doesnt exist but that it is so far removed from what we recieve as truth thru the media that we no longer have access to it. this is the post modern idea of images. Buadrillard and others are right, there are only perspectives and manipulation of perspectives, thats what the whole plamegate web shows us so vividly. boy how we were duped so well. all we have now is a myth of truth. bush's is an admisnistration of myth.

ulterior motives of iraq war

2005-11-15T04:28:00.000-08:00

one thing that always gets in my crawl is when republicans say "is the world better off without saddam in power" (as a secondary justification for war, since the original reason of wmd's was so utterly a false justification) so what if he didnt have wmds, should we have waited for him to reconstitute his programs for masss destruction. being that intelligence was wrong and probablly even manipulated, intentionally, in the other direction, at least we removed a dangerous threat to the safety of the world they say. so what if saddam didnt have wmd's, would we be better off if if saddam was in power. well hell yes. instead of using our troops there, since bush was hell bent on getting reelected and using a war to do so, we should have gone after a more pressing threat, warred with a country that was actually involved with 9-11 or a country that was a known breeding ground for terroism like syria, or iran or even saudia arabia. if were goiing to be in the bussiness of pre-emptive strikes then wouldnt syria be just a rational as target if not more than iraq. i mean if bush is so stead fast and has such conviction then why not wasr with countries like syria or iran, who are currnetly giving us teh middle finger, and by all accounts, not including syria, currently moments away from getting nucleur bombs or in the case of north korea already have the bomb. why? becuase there were specific ulterior motives for making invading iraq and they had nothing to do with national security. ill give 3 plausible ulterior reasons, breifly. 1) haliburton and dick-ly chaney. 2) bush and familial oedipal strivings{see mauren dowd}. 3) iraq was to all rational judgement an easy target, weakend by over a decade of containment, thru sanctions. not so perhaps to the other axis of evil countries. to me the 1 is the most easily to play with. cheny(haliburton) saw an easy profit and with 9-11 saw an justifiable reason to attach to their oppurtunistic greedy hearts. iraq is a wasr of profit and nothing besides. nietzsche once said 'a good cause justifies a war, nay a war justifies a good cause' or something to that affect. cheny, haliburton, hell bush himself a oil man, wanted iraq oil fields. iraq wasnt a training ground for terrorist they were well contained and crippled, this was a fact known. iraq was the last of the axis of evil when it came to the means or capabilities of causing trouble or posing a threat to national security. the degree of ability, to be a threat to us was far less than countries like north korea or iran. the threat had to be manufactured by forged documents and media manipulations. ndeed rove and cheney played us perfectly. would we be better off id saddam was in power. hell yes cause then the resources we hace squandered in destroying a phantom threat could have been used to invade and destroy a real threat like iran or syria. why didnt we war with them instead. ulterior motives. bush has weakend us. why dont people accept that, not just the 62 percent of the peole who now think the iraq engagement was bad move, but everybody. open ur fucking eyes.

2005-11-13T20:29:00.000-08:00

'its more than a fundraiser, its a way of saying that an important part of the Rebuplican establishment supports tom delay now and will continue to supprot him the future."<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101646.html?sub=AR>
">they said it for real

its good to know who the Important repbulican establishment supports. not the people or democracy but those who pervert it for personal gain and the gain of elite big money corps. this is the heart fo the republican agenda. cut taxes, for whom, not the People but so that large corporations can buy more bling and bigger cars. the republican party is the most corupt organization in america. but there so good at covering the asses, by drapping themselves in moral debates and wedge issues that diverts attention away from what they do in their off time, make money money money make. thats all they care about they dont care about school prayer nor do they care if homos get married, but if talking about these issues hides the other more important issues like how government is selling democracy to corporations. the only vote that counts is the pa checks they recieve from big donors, not to mention the loot they hide in off shore accounts.

Mr Ried goes to washington

2005-11-01T12:35:00.000-08:00

mr. reid calls closed meeting in congress. will the democrats grow some balls in there and come out swinging. given the recent history of the party, i must remain skeptical. but ill keep my fingers crossed.

Pat buchanan's existential wasteland

2005-10-30T20:08:00.000-08:00

so i was at the salvation army this weekend and i came across pat buchanan's 'the death of the west'. ive come to respect pat as a talking head on televison becuase at least he speaks from a place of conviction, and he calls bush on his bullshit, unlike say a sean hannity who claims to be conservative but backs republicans reagardless of the consevative practices. i would never put more money in pat's pocket, so buying the book secondhand for a 1.50 i felt less like a hypocrite. so whats my analysis of the book. ive only read 2 chapters so far '4 who made the revolution' and ' the coming migration'. so far i must say he's a better speaker, that is to say, talking head than he is a writer. he writes on the level of a junior college student regurgitating facts he may have come across in the library, but lacking the intellectual ability to synthesis in any meaningful creative capacity that might suggest originality. what struck me most is the idea of the Other and how conservatives deal with the Other in their beliefs, underlying suppostions. ive been trying, lately, to draft in my own mind the parameters that signify the difference in republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives. reading pat's book, what little ive read so far, put things in perspective, for me at least. the difference between the two parties or what might constitute the / between the two opposing ideaologies is how they view the Other. it seems to me that conservatives take a paranoid, aggresive, hostile approach in their ideas pertaining to the Others, the-not-me, the-not-us. In their view the Other has attributes of the alien, infecting-encroaching-antagonistic character. the Other is to be feared and loathed. from the perspective of the republican-self the Other seeks to enslave and do harm to me. there's a definite sexual paranoia in the consevative frame of reference, the homos, the unwed mothers, the ethinics with their godless(that is to say non-chrstian) fornincating children. the Other is barbarian, less refined, they want to outbirth me and rob me of my fertility and [re]populate my neighborhood with black and brown and yellow skin children. the Other is alien to me, speaking a depraved language, laughing at the codes and customs of my fathers. conservatives dont want involvment or god forbid a helping-hand type relationship with the Other. i am not my brother's keeper, i am his opposition. very christian indeed Pat. where do these views originate? one could try to psychoanalyze Pat's stern, unforgiving father, or Pat's un-secured since of masculinity, his sense of impending doom coming from the more sexually potent invading savages spreading their sperm across the country like some savage, blood thirsty johnny appleseeds. but why bother. it is what it is. what can i say about conservatives after reading 2 chapters of pat's paranoid dissertation? the republicans are existentially barren in every way. i must read the whole book though. maybe it has a happy ending. one can hope. maybe in the end pat falls in love with a beautiful mexican woman; who teaches him how to loosen up and enjoy sexual pleasure, and stop worrying about the invading savages with their long spears coming to steal their land back. happy ending everyone.