Politics Again


The speech on Iraq fell short of expectations because of a problem the President has. It’s a problem he shares with most of the Republican Party, where it seems to be endemic: the man simply cannot f__king communicate. His speech did not give the impression that things were going to improve; he failed entirely (in my opinion) to emphasize that our rules of engagement were to change, which I think was the most important part of the whole thing. he inteds to let our troops try and WIN for once, but he certainly didn’t seem eager to say so to us. Instead we all got the idea that he was just sending another 25,000 men into the meat grinder.

If we were to change tactics and make it that much clearer that we were doing so, I think public opinion of the war would significantly improve — I think a lot of Americans agree with the principle on which we’re over there, but they don’t agree with the half-assed methods we’re using to fight it. But too many people, myself included, took away the wrong impression from Bush’s speech: that we weren’t fixing our tactics, just sending more guys in to do the same goddamned thing — the same useless and unsuccessful shit we’ve been trying for the last three years.

Advertisements

Eric Berne, the creator of the Transactional school of psychoanalysis, mapped quite clearly the dangerous mindfield of parasitic thought in his books Games People Play and What Do You Say After You Say Hello? Having encountered these books before reading Gagdad’s theories on mind parasites, I now realize what exactly Berne did that I found useful — he was identifying and classifying all the patterns that make up those parasites. He not only explicated the structure of (•), but figuring out what all those •••s are. The games make up the script by which you live.

My own personal theory is that since the first step toward O is brushing off your excessive •, the first increment of the first step is figuring out exactly what your own parasites are — what games you’re playing — and erasing them from the script.

This is just a short list. See if you recognize a parasite of your own:
Why Does This Always Happen To Me? = self-fulfilling prophecy
Let’s You And Him Fight = love triangle
See What You Made Me Do = when you screw something up, blame the person who distracted you; eventually that idiot will learn to leave you alone
Wooden Leg = using your disadvantages to gain leniency for your mistakes; “What do you expect of a guy who’s alcoholic/crippled/mentally ill?”
Now I Gotcha You Son Of A Bitch = when someone screws you over, you have carte blanche to exact revenge, no matter how disproportionate the reaction

Don’t ever get to thinking that the ideas you had while you were drunk were any good.

Unless you’re already an asshole while you’re sober. In which case, you’re probably one of these guys: http://www.waronterrortheboardgame.com/

The strange thing about the Republican Party’s supporters is their complete lack of party loyalty. Even when their guys were in charge, I don’t recall the Democrat voters whining about not getting everything they want and our guys aren’t listening to us and see if I ever vote for these f__kers again. Hell, no – party loyalty above everything, because they knew the principle behind it, and apparently we on the other side forgot.

Your party won’t give you everything you want, but it’s a million times better than having the other bloc in power and getting absolutely nothing. That’s why the Democrats maintain a foothold, despite being made up of so many different factions, constantly arguing over what they want – they know that they have to vote for their guy, when it comes down to the wire, or they’re screwed.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have no one to argue with but their representatives. The GOP base are glad to get rid of everyone who doesn’t toe the line they’ve drawn – or at least that’s the theory.

But here, again, is my point: By turning against someone who won’t give you everything you want, you run the risk of replacing him or her with someone who will give you absolutely NOTHING. In which case, you’d better have a LOT of patience and feel VERY secure about what might happen to you between this election day and the next.

Between 1966 and 1972, the Democratic party and their aligned lefty cohorts threw The Temper Tantrum That Lost The Vietnam War.

In another fifty years, long after this whole North Korea – Mark Foley – immigration thing has blown over (in which direction, I can’t predict), do you fuckers want to be remembered for throwing The Temper Tantrum That Lost The War On Terror?

It depresses me to know that there are people out there who are stupid enough to believe that we can just throw away a Republican majority and, in this political climate, win it back in another 2 or 4 or 6 years once the GOP has learned its lesson. The Democrats and their allied lefty cohorts will all but kill to make sure that once they win their long-awaited power back, they will never never NEVER have to return it to us – and I remind you that they own the mainstream media. If you’re dumb enough to vote for the Democrats this year, just to teach Washington a lesson, you’ll be wasting your time and your vote. It is a lesson that Washington will never learn, and you will only be calling down upon yourself the burden of another 40 years of mismanagement, incompetence, and appeasement of our enemies.

If this country runs itself into the dirt because you were too indignant about your party to care about your future, you had goddamned well better be willing to accept the responsibility, because you WILL be getting the blame.

Recently surfed over to Neo Neocon for her interview with Washington State pol Steve Beren. A former anti-war activist turned Republican office seeker. He has some interesting things to say on the rhetoric of war protesters.

What Steve Beren is saying about antiwar strategy can be put this way: If we had made a different choice in 2003 and invaded North Korea, the Bush Administration’s opponents would have spent the last three years bitching about why Bush wasn’t doing anything about the obvious problems in Iraq.
It doesn’t matter which battle your political adversary chooses to fight, as long as you consistently maintain the position that he picked the wrong battle. And if he decides to fight in more than one place, if he in fact chooses to fight ALL of the battles you say he should fight, you can always call him stupid for overextending himself.

Anchoress links to an angry editorial by an American Muslim embarrassed at his coreligionists’ bloodlust; he condemns al Qaeda and the rest for perverting the potential of Islam with their bigoted and warlike ways. This is an honorable and admirable man; my only question is, where the hell are all the other guys like him? Why aren’t more of these moderate/reformist Muslims speaking out? Is he a voice crying in the desert, as I suspect, or does he speak for an increasingly large, angry and disgusted Silent Minority? My hopes are not high, but if only more like him speak up and stop hiding, they may be.

Next Page »