Counterintuitive

I used to entertain Wobblie by reading him particularly awesome columns from the Daily Emerald, our my campus newspaper. Our particular favorite contained this all-time classic paragraph:

Karma: My computer broke last week. I rammed into a sidewalk and gashed a hole in my tire about a month ago. Recently, when I attempted to fill in an online application, the program decided not to work for me. Am I just bitching about things, or do I have bad Karma? Does Karma exist? And, if it does, what makes you deserve the bad stuff? And, how do you get to all the glorious good Karma?

These questions are not rhetorical and go unanswered.

But I can't read to Wobblie anymore, so this will have to do. Emerald columnist Josh Grenzsund sticks it to Dems today by pointing out that Dems are just a bunch of weak-ass bitches. To make his point he writes two very bewildering paragraphs (well, three sentences, but you know j-commers English grads(!)):

Republicans, though rife with a vocabulary of Christian prudence, do have this relentless drive to push and stretch what is credible and appropriate. That is truly punk-ass.

Think about it. Who would be more natural in liberty spikes and a Misfits t-shirt- Nixon or JFK, Reagan or Carter, Bush (either one) or Clinton (either one)?

Don't give it too much thought, it is not worth it.

But this is not why I write. I write to bring you the fantasy-land assertion that if Dems get elected president, the war in Iraq will continue through any Dem presidency. Why? Because only a Republican would have the ballz to unilaterally withdraw.

Now, traditional Democratic behavior would drag U.S. involvement in Iraq through all four years and leave that party broadside and prime to be sunk in 2012 for continuing the current administration's failure.

What that president will have to do immediately to have any credibility by 2012 is to pull a Republican move and unilaterally withdraw from Iraq - be a leader, take power, take control, and bring the Democratic vision to this country. Period.

Grenzsund's piece drips with admiration of fascism. And I am not using that word as a euphamism for "right-wing." He literally writes in praise of the "punk-ass" who is willing to ignore trivialities such as law and democracy. He writes in praise of Rovian tactics:

But this comes back to that certain moral fiber. Republicans know how to attack and Democrats are generally poor defenders because they want to be attackers but lack the aggressiveness.

For Democrats this is scary stuff.

It's scary because in this sense conservatives are extremely radical and unscrupulous. In comparison Democrats come across as victims - always seeking compromise, sharing, peace and hoping to all get along, but rarely able to take control of a campaign situation.

When Republicans like Rove go after a power position, they believe not in sharing power, but taking power.

But the next paragraph is what most caught my attention. I am guessing that Mr. Grenzsund just returned from some Young Republican indoctrination session and this is what he got out of it:

Just taking power, whatever the cost, is a simple plan, and with its simplicity comes effectiveness. Democrats want to take power in order to share power, but this policy represents a basic weakness because it can be targeted as a paradox that signifies indecisiveness.

It is weakness to want to share power. It is a weakness, not because sharing power in inherently weak, but because it is a perceived weakness that can be exploited for political gain. Grenzsund goes on to call this brand of politics "justified," because, you know, if you can be made to appear to be weak, you are weak.

So what I learned from the Emerald today: Nixon = punk rock. Only Republicans have the ballz to start and stop wars. And seizing power is effective strength that should be admired, while seeking to "share" power is weakness that must be crushed.

Alright, my day is off to a good start.