This Means War

For women, religion, and Santa Claus, war is hell.

One of the reasons I absolutely love politics is because it affords me no shortage of hyperbole and logical fallacies from which to choose from and make fun of.

On any given day, there’s a wealth of statements and talking points from both sides that gel together in this pool of irony-flavored goodness from which to drink in.  It gives us things to talk about, things to make fun of, and things to coalesce around. 

It also reminds us that we’re really not very intelligent as a society.  The very fact that we accept, fall for, and spend so much time discussing the rhetoric of politics—rather than the substance of politics—will eventually bring about our downfall; as it has to many societies before us.  Human beings are really just not cut out for progress, it seems.

But I can’t change any of that.  If the best I can do is point out how ridiculous we are as a culture, then I’ll be more than happy to stay in my lane. 

So, let’s get to making fun of war.

The GOP is out and about currently defending themselves from the Democrats’ assertion that there’s a “Republican War on Women.” 

In the end, they’re not going to be able to convince the American public that there isn’t.  Because Americans love war, especially as an expression.

In this day and age, Americans are a bit disconnected from the concept of real, actual war.  Unless you’re related to a soldier (or are one yourself), the terrifying realities of war are reduced to third-hand stories that can be easily compartmentalized and stored away without actually impacting your daily life.  This is wrong, and it is unfortunate, but it is the reality of a country that hasn’t had a draft in forty years, and which has five hundred channels to choose from if it doesn’t feel like watching the bummer of Americans sacrificing themselves for these same privileges. 

I am mindful of this hypocrisy, but I do not enjoy it.

Still, this is the kind of thing that allows us to throw the word “war” around, willy-nilly, as though it wasn’t sacriligeous to those people who go out there and actually fight the wars we put them in.  And that is how we got the “Republican War on Women.” 

The GOP can deny that they are waging war on women, and they would literally be correct in that claim.  So far, I have not seen Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Bob McDonnell, or Dick Cheney pick up a gun and form battle lines against a sea of womenfolk.  And that’s probably a good thing for Santorum, McDonnell and Romney, because Cheney has a history of inaccuracy with his aim.

Still, the Republicans deserve to at least have a discussion—if not a battle of words—about whether or not they’ve made it part of their party’s agenda to reduce the freedoms of women instead of addressing their concerns as a part of the electorate.  The simple fact is that there has been a lot of legislation, recently created, passed and backed by Republicans, regarding things that affect women, specifically:  like legislation on reproductive freedoms, limiting insurance coverage of birth control, defunding Planned Parenthood, and shooting down equal pay legislation as a "nuisance."  Also, if you don’t want people to point out that there’s a pattern of anti-women sentiment in your party of choice, it probably isn’t a good idea to run around calling women who voice their concerns about these matters “sluts” and asking them to make you a sex tape.  It just kind of begs for a response.

Furthermore, the Republicans should also not pretend that they are offended by the semantics of the phrase “War on…” either.  It’s the GOP who, more recently, posited that there was a “,” and a “Liberal War on Religion”; so they should not be surprised the Liberals are countering with a rhetorical assertion that the Elephants have declared “war” on women and the working class. On some level, you’re going to have to reap what you sow from the Farm of Rhetorical Ridiculousness.  Unless there was some sort of news event I missed in the last twenty years where a tactical nuclear strike was made on Santa’s Workshop, I’m going to have to let the fight go on.

In fact, let’s just go ahead and continue to beat this dead horse of semantics.  We’re a war-like people; so let’s declare a few more wars and maybe we can find some common ground between the parties. 

I am suggesting the following:

The Bi-Partisan War on Texting:  Liberals, so I’ve heard, are all about the government getting all up in your business, so it’s only natural that they offer up legislation in every state to impose stiff fines on texting while driving.  Republicans, on the other hand, are always complaining that legislation is too long to read.  So, we’ll have Democrats propose anti-texting-while-driving legislationin every state, and ALEC and the Koch Brothers can hire their “brother from another mother” Herman Cain to write the bills in shorthand so it doesn’t amount to more than three pages

No H8ing.  U No its a good ID-A. 

The Bi-Partisan War on George Lucas:  Lucas has hurt all of our feelings messing with Star Wars every ten years.  For once, I’m backing the conservative ideology of legislation aimed at preventing the rape of the halcyon days of yesteryear.  Let’s start enacting legislation to stop him from messing with our childhoods.  And, if you eventually wanna black-bag him and throw him in Guantanamo with an angry Wookiee who wants to rip his arms off, I think we can all agree that’s a good idea at this point.

The Bi-Partisan War on “War on”:  All jokng aside, if we were really going to launch a responsible, concerted effort as a government, and as a people, towards anything, it would a good idea to slow down and bring a little sanity and common sense back to the way we discuss our issues.  This means politicians, pundits alike should not be using the media merely as a sounding board for catch-phrases and bumper-sticker rhetoric by declaring “war” on everything.  This means patiently explaining, and listening, and discussing our problems intelligently, and with solutions—rather than daily media victory—as the endgame. It means the public being responsible with information they’re receiving. It means sometimes, as in war, you have to admit defeat.

But we’re not going to do that.  Not in this day and age.  Not because I said so, or because anyone else does, either.

In America, it must be “war,” all the time.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

joe simonton May 09, 2012 at 08:44 PM
Debbie go back and hide in your little white colonial on Saybrooke Boulevard knowing that in the last 4 months you have complained 23 times about TOS violations about gasp peoples names ...I am sure John Jr is so proud of you .
Ed Fisher May 09, 2012 at 10:37 PM
simonton, what is your problem? what pleasure do you derive with your juvenile posts ?
Tim Torrence May 10, 2012 at 04:17 AM
Leave him alone he has trouble capitalizing his own name.
Patrick Giusto May 10, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Rush Limbaugh: "We've arrived at a point where the President of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage. That's where we -- you want to call that winning? Your side is winning when the president has to lead a war on traditional marriage?" If I had a case, consider it rested.
Ed Fisher May 10, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Patrick, quoting that gasbag of flatulence has no meaning to anyone who has the ability of original thought.
Patrick Giusto May 11, 2012 at 12:05 AM
You're probably right. I just felt like it illustrated my point that we overuse the term "war" too much. Still, I understand your sentiment. Also, I am considering starting a band called Gasbag of Flatulence.
tom m May 11, 2012 at 12:15 AM
ed interesting comment "gasbag of flatulence" ....some on here might think you were talking about yourself again
John McMillan May 11, 2012 at 12:55 AM
@tom m, are you 12 years old? Your comments are increasingly immature and nonsensical. Please try to refrain from being rude when posting. Thanks!
tom m May 11, 2012 at 01:23 AM
john try to keep up ..... you see those little " " which means I was quoting ed who made the little 12 year old comment
Tim Torrence May 11, 2012 at 04:36 AM
Phyllis I suggest re-reading the post. The post is suggesting that the term "War on (insert cause here)" is over used. As a side note I do agree with everything you said other than your second paragraph and the second sentence of your last paragraph.
Phyllis Stager May 11, 2012 at 01:27 PM
Thanks Tim, but in spite eliminating the word 'war', the above column asserts that the republicans have presented and passed legislation which affects women and then he lists these. I don't know what this legislation is and if it was presented by the House, the Senate would never pass it. He suggests therefore...GOP is anti-women. 'Anti' is a sleight of hand verbal trade for 'war'. The first amendment authored by the founders....is something the left has misinterpreted or ignored and from various laws passed by the left, would render at least one of its premises null.
Ed Fisher May 11, 2012 at 07:46 PM
tom m, I referred to Limbaugh with the most polite (and acceptable) description I could think of for this forum. are you a follower of Rush ? If so, you may join the same club as he. on this forum, we have come to know how juvenile your posts are.
tom m May 11, 2012 at 08:35 PM
if liberals cannot argue with your points they try to suppress free speech by complaining about your name punctuation and speeeling
bill budner May 11, 2012 at 08:35 PM
not friendly or decent. no patch sites are. and yes they will flag you for "fake names" even though the registration process allows it. or whatever.
John McMillan May 11, 2012 at 11:37 PM
haha "tom m" I'll let your last post speak for itself..."speeeling" indeed!!!
John McMillan May 11, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Mr. Trevor, there are those on here that do like to discuss and debate, and others who are motivated to name-calling, insulting and TOS reporting because they don't have anything intelligent to say. It shouldn't take you long to figure out who is who. Welcome aboard anyway, brother!!
tom m May 12, 2012 at 03:03 PM
see john you proved my point ..I spelled "speeeling" like that just so you would point it out, AND YOU DID!!!!
lyn May 12, 2012 at 03:24 PM
"thought this might be a decent and friendly site/forum.....is it?" Not so friendly. If you try to make a point someone doesn't agree with, you are either attacked, they draw their own conclusions about your motives for commenting, or they go off topic. Recently I have been thinking of not commenting anymore on Patch because of these very reasons. I just keep hoping that there are people out there who might read my comments and see another perspective, even though they do not participate in the discussions.
tom m May 12, 2012 at 03:32 PM
lyn like all sites as long as you stay away from religion and politics you are fine
Patrick Giusto May 12, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Lyn: I'm typically the target of insults on almost all of the blogs I write for Patch. And, as the author, I appreciate all of them, because I know they are reading and taking time out of their day to say something about what I've created. On one hand, I do invite these insults (call me a sadist), because of the nature of most of my topics. On the other, it sort of justifies the undertone I usually try and place into them, which is that we are slowly becoming incapable of rational and logical debate in our society. The mean-spirited people (and I don't mean anyone in particular here) who lob these insults at each other, and myself, are simply people who don't wish to learn any new perspectives, and who lack the maturity to one day have to admit to themselves that they're wrong about something. While they insist on being like that, they will never evolve. However, I would encourage you to stick with Patch. It is still, more or less, in its infancy. If you're willing to make decent, respectful arguments devoid of insults, you can help turn the tide to a more informed discussion. And, in terms of people who may insult you in particular (as happens sometimes), I would give you the advice of not succumbing to the petty disagreements and baiting that goes on periodically. In short, be better than that. Not every comment (or blog for that matter) deserves a textual, or an emotional, response. Thanks for reading.
tom m May 12, 2012 at 05:26 PM
WAIT is this the start of a " war on insults"
Debbie S. May 12, 2012 at 05:39 PM
lyn: I agree that it's frustrating and I, too, have considered not commenting further on Patch. We can't be alone out here. Those who can't discuss in a civil manner and resort to bullying techniques like name calling and put downs are the loud minority, I hope. S. Trevor: Patch absolutely needs to change their registration programming. It makes me wonder about their editorial integrity when I see some accounts reported immediately (like mine was when I joined and started commenting last year) and taken down right away while other people's are left up an non-compliant with the rules for months. From what I can find out, it's all dependent on the discretion of the independent Patch editors, some of whom don't themselves agree with Patch's TOS. I may not agree with the rules, but if I have to follow them, so should everyone else. And there is a very different tone to comment spaces when people are required to use their full, actual (not cartoon character or made-up) names. Many who are negatively vocal hide behind their pseudonyms and initials.
joe simonton May 12, 2012 at 05:47 PM
and this is Debbies 25th comment about TOS violations it is good to see the TOS nazi is still on patrol
Debbie S. May 12, 2012 at 05:55 PM
Joe - at the rate you're going, you're going to catch me quickly! Who's obsessed again? (Hint: it *might* be the person counting my comments, TOS and otherwise - I'm flattered!)
Tim Torrence May 12, 2012 at 06:44 PM
And Mr. Trevor the comment above is the pot calling the kettle black. But if you read the previous posts in this thread you already figured that out. The best course of action is always to ignore the empty cans but some times it can be fun to pick them up and rattle them too.
Chris (Kit) Myers May 25, 2012 at 10:46 PM
What this country needs is a good five cent cigar. I am not quoting Rush Limbaugh or anybody. I made that up.
William B Budner ESQ. May 25, 2012 at 11:15 PM
thanks kit, that was beautiful.
Chris (Kit) Myers May 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM
What we really need is a war on people who let their dogs defecate in other people's yards.
amanda walter May 26, 2012 at 02:10 PM
This is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard. Be careful though, flinging poo could be considered assault! haha
Troy McClure May 26, 2012 at 05:16 PM
I can't stand people who do that when they're walking their pets (there are ordinances in some cities that prohibit that). But, Amanda is right. If the feces-leaving pet owner were to call the police, he could press charges against you. Would've been just as funny if you would've handed him the bag of poo and told him "I'm sorry, you dropped something." :)


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something