Integral minded people do not stoop to segments entitled, ‘Worst Person in the World,’ nor do they deem others ‘Enemies of the Week,’ and they certainly do not put people ‘on notice’ for any of their political beliefs. We shouldn’t even ‘wag our finger’ at anyone unless, in doing so, it is hoped to guide them back onto the path toward enlightened self-realization.  Instead of these crass attacks upon people’s character, we are going to start our own column: ‘I’m Calling You Out, You Civics Class Dropout Douchebag!’  This week, on our first second-tier inspired mission of ‘I’m Calling You Out, You Civics Class Dropout Douchebag,’ we focus on nudging Georgia Rep. Paul Broun toward something people at the edge of the Republican cocoon are referring to as ‘reality.’  Think of it like Sarah Palin staring at those distant Russian shores through her 600 dollar Oakley sunglasses.  Vague shapes are appearing on those far away conservative beachheads all around America.  Congressman, some of your brethren are wrestling with their souls and the future of Republicanism.  You can join the pity party any time.

In a report to the Associated Press recently, Rep. Broun stated that he was worried about the Obama Administration pursuing Gestapo-like tactics to enforce a ‘radical Marxism.’  So much for an Obama honeymoon period.  The guy hasn’t even written his manifesto yet, and you’re judging him?

Let me splain.  No, that will take too long. Let me sum up.  Having Gestapo-like tactics for any cause is the problem. When you give up on the systems of checks and balances that has sustained our democracy…well, let’s backup for a moment by pulling forward.  Obama is probably not going to pursue radical Marxism, although Duck Soup was a classic in any circle.  The problem is, and has always been, your guy.  Bush dismantled two hundred years of the delicate balance of power, so now Obama has the ability to do the very things you fear.  You were not crying when one of your guys trashed the constitution, because he would only use this power to get the bad guys.But now you are beginning to see the possible ramifications of your short-sighted anti-Americanism.   Yes, dismantling the forefather’s vision of our democracy is anti-American.  If the founding fathers ever met Sean Hannity in a dark alley, a blanket party would no doubt ensue.  You can bet that they would be sticking more than a feather in his cap.

Let’s use a fictional analogy.  Remember when Frodo wielded the Ring of Power back in middle-Earth?  He started out as an innocent, but the absolute power of the ring corrupted him by the third movie. And I think Samwise Gamgee did things to him while he slept (that’s just a theory).  OK, bad example, but disturbing none the less.

You missed the main point, congressman, and not just of that tangential Tolkien analogy.  You missed this point when it was actually important.  You know, when you could have spoken out and hindered our president’s grasp toward absolute power.  Where were you when Bush released his goblins into Rohan from the spires of Isengard?  If it’s going to be socialism now, so be it.  When you find yourself in a banana republic, make with the splits.  Don’t forget, congressman, Canada has beer and hockey.   Perhaps in practice of this new distribution of power, you should donate half of your annual salary to charities.  You know, for practice.  If Obama does turn out to be a monster, remember, you created him.  You forged the ‘one ring’ in the fires of Mt. Doom (aka, Atlanta).  Republicans—those true blooded slices of ‘real’ America—are the doctor Frankensteins of our time. Whatever the future holds, the reparation check is on your hands.  Whatever ill-conceived super agenda is pushed by any and all future presidents—in any and all ideological directions—you bear some of the blame.  You get what you deserve.  Didn’t you read my article on Bush, Fascism, and the other ‘N’ Word?   The article is based on actual, real life—happening right now—fascist moments in America, which you, sir, supported.  The fear of nefarious evil ideologies that may creep up from the liberal bowels of bureaucracy really pales in comparison to what has already been done to our country.  You have fallen for what has come to be known as the pre-Poke fallacy.  For that I am calling you out to a Zell Miller style duel!  Meet me outside of Roosevelt Middle School at 3:15PM (after shop class).   I’m going to open up a jar of integral whoop-ass on your sorry civicsless brain pan, congressman.  Then we can price some condos in Alberta.

Wearing flip flops and a sweat shirt, I flip-flop through the channels as all these political analysts flip-flop on who flipped and flopped more. I flop in front of my computer and flip it on. My online search of ‘flip flop’ from the Marian Webster’s dictionary turned up:

For the purpose of this article we will be focusing on 2 b: a sudden reversal (as of policy or strategy).

I once had a relationship that flopped after I could no longer flip the girl. We will not embarrass her by putting her name in this article, but the inquisitive type can contact Mick Zano; he dated her 20 pounds later. I flip off the political analysts who would so flippantly flop my character? I just chose pride over public embarrassment, and I no longer get off on being crushed in bed (insert flip flop reference here).

At five years old, Mr. Ed was the best show on television. I no longer believe that is the case; in fact, I’ve flipped flopped on my belief he could really talk.

Today’s politicians may not be as smart as me, or a talking horse for that matter. To change one’s mind or position is often a good thing. This current election season highlights these flip flopping positions. Barack Obama in the fall of 2007 said he would like to partake in a publically financed general election. As we know now he did not. But if he did, with the amount of public funds he was able to generate, I would question his intelligence. Have you given your five dollars lately? Joe Biden in April said “I am not interested in the vice presidency.” (No, I did not have further sexual relations with that fat woman).

John McCain in 2006 voted for the Bush tax cuts he opposed in 2001 and 2003. Is this a flip flop, a change in circumstances, or a Mr. Ed moment? His V.P. nominee supported the bridge to Nowhere while running for governor in 2006. After being elected she began to shift her position. “Thanks but no thanks, but doggone it we’ll keep the money.”

Throughout history many flip fopperies have transformed our country. In 1798 Thomas Jefferson supported a constitutional amendment that prohibited the federal government from borrowing money. But, in 1803 borrow he did, allowing the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory. Abraham Lincoln…a proponent of slavery? Check your history books. A change in circumstances? Well, anyway a few of Jefferson’s offspring’s where certainly for it.

FDR’s political philosophy was, in a way, a pro flip flop statement. He explained, “It is common sense to take a method and try it, if it fails admit it frankly and try another.” In the Dave Atsals’s dictionary (DVD), insanity means doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results (Bush 2004).

There are three legitimate reasons for a sudden change of policy or political strategy: change in circumstances, your former stance is admittedly wrong or not working, and, perhaps most importantly, she got too fat.

Not included on this list are “women have the right to change their mind.” And neither is, I change your political stance daily according to where I am campaigning.

Barney Frank comes to mind as a politician that has used all legitimate and non-legitimate justifications for all the flip flops mentioned in this article, except for the ‘she got too fat’ one.

Mick Zano consistently expresses keen political insights. He was the first person I know who publicly opposed the Iraq War.  His bra burning rally during ‘Shock and Awe’ day was…er…uplifting.  He has spotted many of the Bush Administrations corrupt policies and flawed strategeries. However, I am still prepared to demonstrate that Mick’s obsession with the Bush Administration stems from his repressed and sublimated fetish for underage chia pets.

Mick is a man who hits the facts square on the head but misses the point by a planet.  He frames his argument in terms of ‘quantifiable blame.’ “Who is more to blame for America’s collapse?” he asks, “The Bush Administration (Neo Cons) or the Radical Left (Neo Hippies). I frame the argument in terms of ‘qualitative responsibility.’ Who is more responsible for our republic’s destruction—the Neo Cons or the Neo Hippies?  I will hereby refer to Mick’s argument as ‘Perspective m’ and I will refer to my argument as ‘Perspective Pokeysexgodgeniuspoet.’

In terms of blame, Mick rates the Neo Cons a 9 (7 of which can be attributed to the Bush Administration). The Neo Hippies rate a 6 (2 of which can be attributed to a direct reaction against Bush and co.).

From Perspective m the Neo Cons indeed seem culpable for the doom that awaits us, although Pelosi’s Congress is quickly gaining ground. Regardless, from Perspective PokeySexGodGeniusPoet, the Neo Hippies appear more responsible for our country’s demise.

The support for Perspective POKEYSEXGODGENIUSPOET: there are objectively determined levels of human development (archaic, magical thinking, conformity, rationality, pluralism, integration). The higher the level of cognitive development, the greater the depths of depravity and corruption if a pathology forms (aka, have you seen the footage from Mick’s bra burning rally?).  The point being, with the greater perspective comes greater responsibility.  Take, for instance, a 12-year old child with a womb-based developmental disruption.  He is not nearly as dangerous as a pathological mad scientist who believes that humans have metastasized into cancerous warts upon the greater Gaia-Earth vagina. Nor should the developmentally challenged child (I am in no way comparing George Bush to a 12-year old retard, but the wart…) be held to the same level of responsibility as the mad scientist.

I hold the liberal pluralists (Neo Hippies) to a higher standard than the Bush Administration because the Neo Hippies ARE more highly developed than the Neo Cons.

The great danger with the Neo Hippies Gone Mad is their subtle yet relentless attempts to avoid responsibility. (Was Richard Nixon responsible for the Weather Underground’s behavior?) They seek justifications to indulge in their childish urges to ‘do anything that they want,’ including riots, theft, assault, blowing up buildings, and burning undergarments to old Dylan tunes (Tangled up and bra?).

Their excuse boils down to this: in light of the Bush Administration’s Tyranny, what do you expect?

Stick it to the man. Fight the Power. Free Willy!

I would even argue that the Neo Hippies hadn’t gone so feakin’ mad, mainstream Americans would have been comfortable with Al Gore or John Kerry. The reason that Americans didn’t vote for Gore or Kerry was because so many anti-Bush fanatics ranted hateful crazy shit that sounded very similar to Al-Qaeda’s rhetoric. America settled for the lower developed Bush Administration because the higher developed progressives appeared psychotic (Wright), unprincipled (Wrangle), immoral (Sharpton), empty suited (Edwards), or simply UFOish (Kucinich).

I admit that Perspective m presents a factually accurate assessment of our nation’s predicament—I just don’t believe any good comes from asserting Perspective m.  In context of the Neo Hippie’s madness, Perspective m begins to validate their irresponsible and irrational indulgence by blaming it on the Bush Administration. The call for responsibility far outweighs the desire to caste blame.

And if you don’t get it by now, as m asserts, then you have already joined the Farrakhan Freak Show.

I believe that brings this argument to an n.

The debate in question is an on-going one, waged over the past six years, between myself and fellow Discordian, Pokey McDooris.  Here and now I hope to land the knock-out punch.  Recently our rants have shifted to the societal collapse lurking at the edge of the collective psyche—a phenomenon I call the Scheisstgeist.  Our late night debates typically include our wasteland warrior mission statement (which is still in progress).  We also wonder, as integral warlord hopefuls, whether or not owning sex slaves will impede our chances for enlightenment.  Most importantly, we contemplate the logistics of brewing beer from bread and gobs of our own spittle.  In other words, we both agree America is in trouble, but we fundamentally disagree on how we, as a nation, got here.

Pokey, champions Ken Wilber’s Boomeritis theory, which, in a nut shell, blames liberal pluralism. Common worldcentric thinking is a relatively high level of human development, but, according to Wilber, a nefarious shadow-side lurks within this world view.  These potentially unhinged liberals—or green meanies as our own anthropologist Dr. Sterling Hogbein calls them—are not willing to repair the current system, but are working diligently toward its’ demise.  They are not interested in including and transcending, so much as starting from scratch.  What they tend to ignore are all those pesky transition periods, wherein people from historically lower perspectives ultimately force them to toil rigorously in the field by day and toil rigorously in the sack by night.  Some of the folks keeping this shadow side of pluralism in check are: FOX News, AM radio, and Senior Discord Analyst Pokey McDooris.

Look no further than Europe to see how a policy of appeasement is working out.  These wonderful cultures are being absorbed by immigrants unwilling to assimilate (IUAs).  Here in the US, extreme political correctness (EPC) is spawning a type of ‘nice police,’ which actually endangers our freedom of speech.  From this perspective, appropriate non-offensive language is often deemed more important than the truth.  ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ (even if you are off of the boat, off of your meds, and, by all accounts, off of your rocker).  In counseling, this is often called enabling.  Sometimes it’s healthier to say, ‘I’m OK, but I’m really not so sure about you, suck wad.’ Suck wad is a clinical designation found in the DSM-IV (Homeboy Edition).

How can easygoing progressive thinking impact our first amendment rights?  Just ask Don Imus or Michael Savage.  Even Barak Obama called Don Imus’ rants ‘hateful speech’ but was far more lenient when his own pastor’s antics surfaced (until it cost him too many votes).

An anti-American movement certainly thrived within this country pre 9/11, so in this respect I agree with my colleague.  The recent Reverend Wright controversy opened a scab of one such problem festering within our society (other than my friend Shag).  For some, change means giving up their well cultivated hatred.  I agree that there are many people looking for reasons to tear down our systems, however, there is another side to this story—my side. I feel that the last seven years have been much more damaging to this country than any underground, nebulous threat from the—not in any remote position of power—green meanies.

I’m afraid a recap is necessary.  It has been all but proven that torture has been given the green light at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib by the Bush Administration.  By all accounts this development has been the greatest blow to the soft war, or what has been termed ‘the war of ideas.’   Executive power has been greatly expanded, including signing statements and a host of enhanced executive privilege (EEP) that protects the Bushies from any and all accountability. Habeas corpus, which successfully bypasses the rest of the Bill of Rights, has thankfully been zapped with a defibrillator.  But add two wars bleeding us dry, one of which is a superfluous invasion poorly managed, warrant-less wire tapping, a compromised justice department, a failing economy, out of control corporate greed, treasoness subcontracting during war time (breath), out of control oil prices, ignoring climate change, and a plummeting approval rating around the world…and you’ve most certainly lost sight of the original point of this sentence.  Shake, chill, and serve with a side order of freedom fries, and wa la, you have a collapsing super power.

Back to my colleagues’ argument: what has been the greatest force behind this home grown anti-Americanism?  You guessed it, the Bush Administration.  Bush has brought anti-Americanism into the mainstream.  He has legitimized the fringe elements of our society and has galvanized these hodge-podges of marginalized pockets into a solid movement.  He has done this at home and abroad.  He has done this as effectively in Newark as he has in Islamabad.  He is the recruitment tool for the Bin Ladens and the Farrakahns. In fact, there is even an anti-government movement within the Republican Party itself!  They’re called the Paulites, and they demand zany things like freedom and small government.  They are even talking about moving into their own gated communities, in a sense, seceding from the union. And remember kids, just having any hostile feeling toward this government is enough to get you on the Gitmo express.  Under American law, these libertarians—a branch of the Republican Party—might end up behind gates all right, but not the ones they think.

Now you can safely add every libertarian-minded individual to the Farrakhan freak show.  You can then add all of the progressives disturbed by Bush’s brand of fundamentalism to the freak show.   Add every educated person who understands the dangers of the Bushies brand of group think, all or none thinking, and a host of other cognitive distortions to the freak show.  Add everyone sick of having their patriotism questioned by the likes of Sean Hannity—a man who has endlessly cheered the crippling policies pushed by this administration—to the freak show.  Add real conservatives and everyone else who is for small government and fiscal responsibility to the freak show.  Shake, chill, and serve with a side order of freedom fries, and wa la, you have stoked and legitimized real anti-American sediment around the country and the world.

If you would like to keep score—somewhat subjectively I’m afraid—let’s put the danger from the neocon’s secrecy and incompetence at about a 9 right now (7 points of which can be attributed to Bush and Co.).  I give the ‘nice police’ and this seething anti-Americanism, which culminates in the fear of a collapse from within, as being about a 6 (2 points of which can be attributed to a reaction to Bush and Co.).  Even if the collapse does ultimately come from within our society, no matter how you do the math, far more damage has been done by the neocons.  Combined, Bush has negatively impacted these categories by nearly two thirds!  Another few years of this madness and, guess what, you can add me to the freak show.