2

A Rundown of Liberal and Conservative Robots

With all the talk of "liberal robots" recently, it's worth actually examining the world of manmade automatons.  As it turns out, the robotic world is actually quite diverse in its political affiliations.  The following is a heavily-researched rundown of some notable robots throughout history and their political leanings.

Robbie - Was known to shout "Danger Will Robinson!" whenever Will came too close to a Democratic spending bill.

Wall-E - A noted environmentalist, Wall-E's accomplishments included successful lobbying for several environmental protection bills in Congress, as well as single-handedly saving all life on Earth.  Unfortunately, his later presidential run would be derailed by his past affiliations with the Communist Party.

C-3PO - Hard to pin down.  Though notably adverse to armed conflict and a proponent of multi-culturalism with fluency in over six-million forms of communication, 3PO was also remarkably conservative on social issues.  Some say this conservatism was sparked by his outrage upon learning of the incestuous relationship between Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia Organa.  Speculation still continues as to whether 3PO may have been a closted, self-hating gay robot.

The Terminator - Unknown, though rumors persist that The Terminator has since disguised itself and become a governor somewhere.   Of course, that would just be silly.

R2D2 - Unlike his counterpart, R2 was a known lefty, and successfully led the movement to allow gay robots to marry.

Data - Though a noted atheist, Data was generally coy about his political opinions.  It is possible that, not having any human emotions, he never formulated any.

Dick Cheney - Despite the occasional glitch causing him to support gay marriage or admit that invading Iraq might be a mistake, Cheney has been effectively programmed as a strict neo-con.

Bender - Though soft on crime, Bender's stance on killing all humans was notably hawkish.

0

When did Politics Become a Religion?

One of the interesting - and remarkably persistent - arguments that the right have been using lately is to try and claim that liberals treat our current president as some sort of "messiah."  It is also often assumed, by those on both the right and left, that the other side must support anyone on their "side" or in their party unequivocally.  Cases of fraud, marital infidelity, and even more trivial things like choices of pets or movie tastes somehow reflect, to many, an inherent failing from the other side of the political aisle that proves their uselessness and the inherent righteousness of the side that person subscribes to. 

Now, don't get me wrong.  On a nightly basis I drink the blood of my holy messiah, and pray to him to grant me forgiveness for my sins and lapses in loyalty.  But I'm not here to talk about Jon Stewart.

No doubt there is a certain cult of personality that is inherent in politics.  John F. Kennedy had it.  Ronald Reagan had it.  Our founding fathers most certainly have it.  Ron Paul has it even among people that don't seem to have any real understanding of he is, like people that read Infowars.  Every successful politician, particularly on any kind of national stage, has on some level managed to mine a cult of personality that leads people to follow them.  This is why people get riled up and excited at campaign rallies and plaster bumper sticker proudly on their cars.  It is why people get invested in campaigns and get into heated debates right up to election day and even beyond.  For any truly successful politician, there can't just be a derision of the other guy among your ranks but also a certain tendancy among supporters to like you and what your own policies are.  They have to feel that you truly represent them and their values.

However, the suggestion that the vast majority of people on either the right or left would universally condone every action of everyone on their side, let alone treat them as gods to be worshipped, is quite simply foolishness.  The vast majority of people fall SOMEWHERE in the middle of those extremes, even if they are predominantly on the right or left.  Some may extend further to the right or left of their given party.  Regardless, the point is that any free thinking person doesn't agree with even their own party or the people they vote for %100 of the time.  That would be lunacy, and it is something only a small proportion of people actually do.

And yet, while most people are able to identify some policies of even their supposedly "worshipped" leaders that they disagree with, there is always the assumption made by those on the opposite side of the aisle that a failing of those leaders is somehow a reflection on everyone who might have voted for them, that they MUST treat them as some sort of perfect leader because of the fact that they voted for them.  The irony of this is that it utilizes the same simplistic black-and-white thinking that it accusses the other side of using.  When one makes the assumption that everyone on the opposing side politically is uniform in their thinking, it commits the same fallacy that it is trying to place on the other guys.

Perhaps our divisive party system is largely to blame; the party line dictates that those elected into the statement focus their public statements on supporting the party and painting the opposition as wrong at all costs, even if behind the scenes, or at least at lower levels, things are actually much friendlier and legislators are able to compromise and cross party lines more than most people would think.  Furthermore, the news media has become overrun with pundits, who commonly if not always thrive on being partisan hacks; a Sean Hannity or Paul Begala may occasionally concede some minor point to the opposition just to maintain plausibility, but by and large any news item, no matter how innocuous or even non-political, will eventually be spun by them as concrete proof that liberals/conservatives are inherently right and conservatives/liberals are inherently wrong.

However, as our president himself as said, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.  Not every debate has to involve total demonization of the opposition.  And when you get past thinking that everyone on the other side is dumb and evil, you might just find that you can actually talk to them, learn some things...and maybe even get some things done.

3

Stop throwing around words like 'Socialism' and 'Fascism'

Recently, in political...let's generously call it "discussion," I've seen a lot of people on the internet and various talking heads on the ol' video box throwing around words like "socialism" and "fascism" as if they have almost any relevance at all to current American politics. Usually, they are applied to our President, Mr. Obama.

Now, I am no blind supporter of the current administration. Keeping "rendition" is pretty questionable. Failing (so far) to pursue prosecution for criminal behavior in the last administration is pretty questionable. Giving tons of money to the banks instead of people is pretty questionable. Not that I suddenly hate the guy, and I think the administration has done a lot of good as well, but I think there is room for constructive - even harsh - criticism of the administration as long as it comes from an intellectually honest place, and it doesn't just have to center on those items I listed either (which I realize largely fall under the category of "he's not liberal enough").

But the whole socialism and fascism thing is just really stupid. Now, I'm no expert in political theory, but as I tend to understand the political spectrum, there are a few truths that bear stating:

-Socialism is on the "liberal" end; as such, the Democratic party is closer to socialism than the Republican party is.

-Fascism is on the "conservative" end; as such, the Republican party is closer to fascism than the Democratic party is.

-Both parties are far closer to EACH OTHER (and the middle of spectrum) than they are to either socialism or fascism, which are at far extreme ends; indeed, neither is remotely close to either true socialism or true fascism.

-For that matter, fascism and socialism are not the same thing at all, and certainly do not go hand in hand.

Even Fox News star Glenn Beck, for all his paranoia, stupidity, and probable diagnosable insanity, at least understood this when he "corrected" himself on his assertion that Obama is marching us towards socialism; he understood, as he asserted that Obama is in fact leading us towards fascism, that there is a clear difference between the two. He's also prone to random crying spells, believes Woodrow Wilson inserted secret symbols into the dime to make us all fascist, and once claimed to hate the families of 9/11 victims' families for being sooooo upset by the deaths of their loved ones. But I digress.

Unfortunately, a lot of people entering the political discourse recently aren't quite as knowledgeable as Glenny boy, and believe (if their signs at "teabagging" rallies are any indication) that both are in fact one in the same. Not to mention, they don't seem to understand the distinctions between recent government policies and either the socialist or fascist extremes.

Perhaps more troublingly, they also don't seem to understand a little thing called "strategy." We on the left have finally found our groove again recently, but don't you guys remember what we were like just a few years ago? Arguably, one of the reasons the left failed to convince those on the fence about the Iraq war to join our side is that just enough dumbasses decide to show up at otherwise peaceful rallies and burn flags, wave "Bush=Hitler" signs, and sport fashionable "Anarchy" symbols on their t-shirts. They were perfectly within their rights to do such things, but they didn't seem to understand how this would play on news outlets that would choose to zero in on them. Other movements have been just as troubled. Even many animal lovers like myself (I spend every Saturday caring for homeless pets at a shelter) don't care for PETA because they choose to hurl fake blood at people and generally act like morons. Religious groups that show bloody pictures of dead infants just revolt people (often out with their own children) who might otherwise be sympathetic.

And now, we have the people equating a slight increase in the taxation of the wealthy as a move towards totalitarianism (or, they would if they could actually spell "totalitarianism"). They've got all the requisite rage, but not the ability to articulate their positions in an intelligent way that would be worth discussing. And they (however unintentionally) discredit the more intelligent people out there who might otherwise side with them, not to mention alienate anyone else who might otherwise be willing to engage with them.

So rightists: get out there and speak your viewpoints. Debate, discuss, and maybe even protest to make your voices heard. Enjoy some delicious tea. But remember that not long ago we on the left looked like the loony, unorganized, and outright hateful group that some of your lesser members are making you look like now. We had to join together, form a real agenda, and improve the quality of our discourse to get where we are here in 2009.

And for god's sake, stop saying "fascist" and "socialist" every five seconds. It makes you look like morons.