Around the same time, Great Britian hosted its own series of local elections. But, unlike the one in Massachusetts, those were actually exciting. Ukip- the United Kingdom Independence Party- held its own against the uber liberal Liberal Democrats, liberal Labor and the far-too-concerned-with-being PC Tories and Conservatives. Those citizens of England concerned with the economy, environmental regulation, lack of jobs, taxation, immigration and the general misfortune of having the European Union dictate how all of it is taken care of, finally had a party to vote for. The fact that a relatively small, overlooked party could rise up and take 25% of the vote stands as a beacon of hope in an age of acquiescing despair. Ukip leader Nigel Farage doesn’t care what people call his party- fruitcakes, clowns, loonies, closet racists… The fact is, none of is is true. Without waver, Farage continues to articulate Ukip’s reasonable positions to the bitter end. And that conviction is, quite apparently, infectious. You can see two of Farage’s quips here and here:

But back to Massachusetts. Here, with a record low turnout, the nominations went to Ed Markey (D) and Gabriel Gomez (“R”). Blame it on the bombings, lack of campaigning time (most announced their candidacy in late February), and general election fatigue, but we’ve wound up with the voter equivalent of choosing McDonalds or 7-Eleven when you’re feeling hungry in the North End.

Most of us know enough about Ed Markey to provoke a bit of vomit at the mere mention of his name, or the site of his hairline. He bombed every single debate he had against Lynch, is apparently obsessed with what money his opponents do or do not spend, thinks Al Gore is a messiah, and continues to fixate on some cable company legislation he might have participated in writing over 20 years ago. He won anyway.

And on the Republican side, Gomez- a candidate who announced his campaign in Spanish, wrote a childish letter to Governor Patrick asking if he could please be interim senator, gave money to Obama’s 2008 campaign, and wears the fact that he knows absolutely nothing about politics as a badge of honor- beat out the well-known and predictably conservative Sullivan as well as the way more exciting Winslow, simply because he had more money to burn through and people recognized his name.

Somehow, this translates to Gomez as the “new face of the Republican Party,” or even the “face of the NEW Republican Party.” Republicans and conservative leaning independents are being told to rally round Gomez if we want any future as a political entity. The same Republicans who are still so painfully injured by Scott Brown’s betrayal, are telling the voters to “get over it,” and go Gomez. He’s either the lesser of two evils or a fresh, exciting young businessman/former Navy SEAL/rare example of a Spanish-speaking Republican. Either way, they say, he’s the best we’ve got.

No.

I have the opposite reaction. I believe that the “New Republican party” has no face. If it does, I believe we haven’t even entirely met it yet. And Gomez leaves me with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that has me wondering if he really is the lesser of two evils.

Since that statement is likely to raise eyebrows from members of my own increasingly splintered party, let me explain.

Exhibit A would, of course, be Gomez’s recent letter to Deval Patrick, urging the governor to consider him as a potential interim senator, despite his (a) lack of political experience and (b) lack of good writing skills, and because he (c) promised that he’ll vote with the democrats on the very important issues of gun control and immigration reform. You can read the full letter here, or just trust my summary below:

Then there’s Exhibit B, the moment Gomez accepted his nomination in Spanish, showing all of us who said that playing his minority card by announcing his candidacy in Spanish was lame, that he didn’t give a fuck about our votes anyway.

And, if all that wasn’t painful enough, consider Exhibit C, a television appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball. While I generally would forgive any Republican for choking up in the face of baseless liberal insanity, Gomez’s solution was essentially to claim that he isn’t really a Republican.

When forced to defend his position, Gomez comes off as inarticulate, confused, and, most significantly, weak. These are exactly the opposite traits the Republican party needs to advertise if it ever wants to attract any new members of the electorate. Nigel Farage- remember him from my second paragraph?- has made Ukip strong by standing by his party, articulating his positions, never worrying about what people think of him or call him, and always maintaining political integrity. Most Republicans would be hard pressed to do that in the face of an accusation of “racism,” right-wing bigotry, or lying. Gomez is especially bad at it, to the point that, I believe, he does more harm than good.

Should Gomez win, he will serve as an easily malleable patsy for Democrats to blame for anything, even if he votes with them. For Liberals, Gomez is a win-win, although I’m sure the Daily Kos will put up a good fight against his right-wing Tea Party Karl Rove ties.

That’s not to say I have any intention of voting for Markey either. Frankly, I’m horrified at the whole situation, and am baffled at how, pathetic candidates aside, the major issue in this election has become who signs what pledge about accepting what money. If that were really an issue, neither of these two candidates names should still be in the news.

Come election day, I’ll be casting a blank ballot, and hoping for a Farage-like Republican to take Markey’s empty seat in Congress.

For those of you not in-the-know, Mr. Braff, that boy-next-door prince of make-you-feel-uncomfortable comedy, wants to make a new movie. And, despite finding traditional financial backing, has looked to crowd-funding via Kickstarter.

For those of you really not in the know, crowd-funding is a method whereby artists, inventors, writers- really anyone who wants to do something that they can’t afford to do on their own- beg the internet for money. The four year old Kickstarter is arguably the internet’s largest and best-known medium for crowd-funding, originally the haven of indie-game companies and local musicians who used Kickstarter to raise the couple thousand bucks they needed to produce any product at all. Without Kickstarter, a lot of really cool stuff you’ve never heard of probably would never have gotten made.

That is, until recently, when hotshot game companies like Double Fine, and well-known Hollywood types and “artists” like Amanda Palmer, commandeered Kickstarter to raise hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars not just so they could make something, but so they could make it without owing anyone anything.

Now, I’ve backed my fair share of Kickstarter projects, and Dan Silvers, fellow writer here at MPI, has run two of his own. So us MPIers are pretty well versed in how funding has changed over the years. Zach Braff’s project- Wish I was Here- is simply part of a larger Kickstarter trend away from backing the unknown, unusual and “deserving” to simply choosing the popular kid.

Just look at Braff’s project. He’s been on Kickstarter 5 days, and, at the time of this writing, has raised over $2.3 million of his $2 million goal, with 12 backers responsible for pledging over $7,500 each. That same single pledge would be more than enough to fund just one regular Kickstarter project, but you probably already read an article about that- a lot of people are sitting around wondering exactly why wealthy Braff can’t fund his own film.

The thing is, I don’t give a flying F about whether or not is is “okay” for one percenters like Braff to use crowd-funding to raise money. But I believe in free market capitalism. So when Braff tells the LA Times that:

“People who don’t like what I’m doing, that’s fine. That’s the great thing about crowd-sourcing – it’s very pragmatic. You’re into it or you’re not. There are obviously a lot of people who like the idea and will support it.”

I don’t really disagree. If someone wants to sell something and people have money and want to buy it, what wrong was done? Certainly no one is forcing you to fund Braff’s project (that is until he decides to film in Massachusetts and cash in on the tax credits). What does irk me, however, is that Braff has made it very clear that he ascribes to the some-people-are-hogging-all-the-money, the-American-class-system-is-rigged, corporations-are-inherently-evil, redistribution-of-wealth-is-completely-necessary faircanomics. Last Fall he even traveled all the way from his couch in LA to Massachusetts’ UMass Amherst, Northeastern, and Clark Universities to stump for then-Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren-aka the ideological foundation for Occupy Wall Street.

In the Elizabeth Warren view that Braff claims to embrace (despite the fact that it is quite obvious in that video that he really has no idea why he’s endorsing Elizabeth Warren other than the fact that she isn’t a Republican), there is a limited amount of money floating around, and anyone who backs Braff’s project isn’t backing the project of someone who is more “in need.” It simply isn’t FAIR. BTW, according to TV Guide, Braff made $350,000 per episode of Scrubs, at least in the final seasons.

Braff himself has only backed 11 Kickstarter projects, which gets you wondering if people are really capable of choosing to appropriately fund enough of these projects on their own. Perhaps Kickstarter should institute some sort of “tax” on its most successful campaigns, spreading that money around to some of the less popular kids. Or, to hell with it, there isn’t any government regulation on Kickstarters yet. Think of all the potential money that the Fed isn’t collecting. Braff’s project alone might help to reinstate White House Tours!

In the meantime, before the likes of Zach Braff start campaigning for candidates that promise to tax the likes of Kickstarter out of existence, crowd-funding is still an awesome way for us non-beautiful people to get started. If you’re looking to help out an interesting project that is not just a revamped story of an overgrown adolescent who finds a renewed take on life with help from a manic pixie dream girl, might I recommend one of the following:

June, Adrift an indie movie that actually NEEDS your help to get made. Special offer for Braff himself.

The Boston Festival of Indie Games

Nina Forever, an indie flick that might be good…

The HP Lovecraft Bronze Bust Project because Cthulhu would want you to.

Shortly into my visit there, a procession began making its way into the memorial area. The procession was led by a bagpipe player and several men in what were presumably religious robes. The line of people broke through the crowd, and through the memorial area. Most people made way for what they assumed was a ceremony of remembrance for the deceased.

Unfortunately, upon closer inspection, the procession had absolutely nothing to do with the terror attacks, or those lost.

While some of the robed men appeared to be dressed in what is reminiscent of the robes of Catholic bishops, others donned robes more akin to academia. Those that follwed them were dressed in plain clothes, but the signs they carried with them showed their true intentions for breaking through the solemn memorial: they were there as a protest for climate change.

It was almost unthinkable. A group of people was actually marching their way through the memorial to push an agenda of climate change. Others must have noticed just how disrespectful it was as well, because I heard a young woman yell, “These people didn’t die because of global warming!”

The group still marched their way through the crowd, and eventually made their way to the Trinity Church. Upon reaching the Trinity Church, myself, I noticed the sign outside that advertised their event. They were there as part of the “Climate Revival 2013″ that was taking place on that day.

Although the website is misprinted on the sign (listed as maucc.org), the actual website describes the event as held between the Old South Church and the Trinity Church. The schedule on the site’s sidebar notes:

Due to the recent events in Boston, the Climate Revival will be limited to the worship services being held in the two churches. All are welcome to both of these services.

However, this schedule change didn’t seem to deter a group of people disrupting a completely unrelated, emotionally-moving memorial. I could not help to draw comparison to another group that disrupts memorial services to propagate their personal agenda: the Westboro Baptist Church.

I wish I had noticed what was happening sooner. I wish more people, like that upset young woman, were willing to speak up. A message needs to be sent that our grieving will not be undermined for another’s personal gain…and we should call out those that would try.

Last Friday, I was on my way out for an early morning run when I received the lockdown call. Thus began over 12 hours of pacing around my house, watching constant streams of repeat footage-based news, and staring out the window. The lockdown order hadn’t seemed to affect the weather, which provided the most extraordinary day yet this spring. It didn’t bother the birds or the squirrels- they were all running and hopping around as usual. It didn’t bother the flowers- the cherries and tulips which had all been so reluctant to emerge on time finally burst open in a fleet of color. And I sat around inside watching it all, along with the empty house and port-o-potty across the street, wondering not if but when it would all blow up.

I found myself with a rather unique perspective. I have a vivid childhood memory of a prior “lockdown” in the same neighborhood. We received a phone call telling us to stay inside, lock the doors and ignore the doorbell or any knocking. There was a man running around our street with a knife. We saw him zoom down our walkway. We watched him get arrested. The whole ordeal made sense, did not require national news coverage for those of us stuck inside to know what was going on, and was over within a half hour. It was with this brief, but frightening experience in mind that I began watching my street last Friday.

I live close enough to the location of the previous night’s shooting in Watertown that I recognized it as “my neighborhood,” yet I live far enough away that I was outside of the “twenty street radius” that anyone paid any attention to. I live on a significant cross street, just like the one Flash Bang was eventually found on. I saw not one single cop car, not one single police officer all day. And trust me, it wasn’t because I just “missed” it. I received not one single phone call update, explaining why all of greater Boston was still “sheltering in place” hours later, despite every police officer in greater Boston seemingly fixated on one tiny area of Watertown.

Instead, I watched the same news being watched in Billings, Montana. I knew just as much as my friends tweeting from Atlanta, Georgia. I was told by some asshole in Binghamton, NY that, if I hadn’t seen a cop, it was because I wasn’t in danger. Except none of us, including the police, seemed to know where Flash Bang was, and everyone seemed to think that he was walking around with a bomb belt. How safe could I have felt?

The whole day appeared to be based on “faith.” Faith that staying in my house was keeping me safe. Faith that the police would suddenly appear if I finally did hear shouts of Allahu Akbar from the port-o-potty out my window. Faith that the fact that the Massachusetts State Police were goosestepping in front of the Arsenal Mall- home of my favorite Forever 21 store- served some valuable purpose. Faith that Governor Deval Patrick’s presence in a potentially dangerous area had not diverted security that might have been needed more elsewhere. Faith that mayor Menino meant all of the Greater Boston area (including Watertown) when he announced from a wheelchair in the parking lot of the Watertown mall that “Boston would get through this.” Faith that the people being escorted from their homes were doing so voluntarily. Faith that this would all be over as soon as it began and we would quickly forget the moments of the paralyzing passivity foisted upon us.

But it didn’t end quickly and it didn’t end neatly. The lockdown ended before Flash Bang was found. Unapologetically, Governor Patrick announced we could all now emerge from our homes- so long as we were “vigilant” (whatever that meant)- and he did it with a shit eating grin on his face.

The lockdown had been voluntary, entirely based on fear of what was outside. I felt it, people miles farther away felt it. But, at 6:30, when the “ban” on outdoor activity ended, what had changed? Certainly not public safety. That must have been constant throughout the day. Surely I was no more or less safe than I had been at 4pm. Nevermind that within minutes of stepping outside for the first time all day, a man- a regular citizen- located Flash Bang in his boat. That likely would have happened minutes after the lockdown ended, whether that had been several hours before, or several days later. The police were never going to check that street, or that house, or that boat. It wasn’t inside their “radius,” and apparently, they had no dogs sniffing around.

It all begs the question: what happened last Friday? Were we placed on lockdown for our safety, or as some experiment in fear-based compliance?

I have nothing against lockdowns when there is actual danger involved- a man in a specific area, who has the potential to harm those he comes into contact with. In the case of my childhood experience, this was all true. Last Friday morning, these circumstances were all valid as well, and, given the possibility of bombs in various locations, as well as Flash Bang’s propensity for car jacking, a large area did not seem unreasonable either. But, by the time the Governor’s cavalcade arrived, was the ensuing activity actually for public safety, or was it a giant social experiment? Was the giant display at the Watertown Mall a measure of a prepared police force, or an opportunity for Deval Patrick to gain national recognition for an upcoming presidential bid?

Last week I realized that I’d never fully grasped the meaning of terrorism until I experienced it first hand. But it’s not so much the fear of a random bomb explosion on my way to the ATM, or hearing that my friend was shot for no reason except he was born in America and/or not Muslim that scares me. It’s starting to look like the Boston bombing, as close as it was to my home, will soon go the way of Benghazi: uninvestigated, and quickly forgotten. What scares me is how little my elected government officials care to represent how I feel. What scares me is how differently this case would have been treated had the bombers turned out to be gun-toting white Christians. What scares me is that we very well may have a government that chooses to give atrocities such as this one just enough attention to push their own political agenda.

And that is truly terrifying.

None of this has stopped idiots from trying to convince the rest of us that the terrorists aren’t so bad.

Michael Moore took to Twitter today to highlight the terrorists’ pre-explosion accomplishments:

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is currently being pursued as suspect in the Boston Marathon terror attack that left over 100 injured and three dead, including an 8-year old boy.

Although Moore previously alluded that he believed the attack to be tax day or Tea Party-related, he also wants you to know that he got a small part of his theory right:
 

No matter how much Giffords’ seemingly realist depiction of the recent tragedies in Newtown and her own tragic experience tug at our emotions and motivates us to react, we must not let that motivation become a legitimizing force for a simple game of politics, a game that has produced no effective legislation to address the unnecessary violence that too often afflicts our society.

I am utterly disgusted by Giffords’ notion that those senators who voted against this useless piece of legislation somehow were misleading in the sympathies that they expressed to her and those implicated in the shootings in Newtown. For a Congresswoman to suggest that someone’s opinion of a piece of legislation subtracts from their sincerity as a human being not only goes against the entire Western academic tradition, but also the political spirit of this nation.

Ms. Giffords, you are, indeed, a courageous woman; I cannot imagine what you and your family has gone through after such a horrible violence was done. You are not a courageous politician; you sold your mouth to the Democratic Party, as a morally charged tool to reproduce old rhetoric. You are drawing on the violence that was done to you to advance a simplistic, election-oriented political agenda along with your own career.

I hope there is new Gun Control legislation, and I hope it goes beyond the simplistic ideas that were proposed in the bill that the senate just rejected. I hope that we have a discussion about mental health in this country, because the reality is that that is the underlying problem in this debate. It upsets me that politicians like Ms. Gifford do not have the courage to address what is a horribly troubled and poorly funded area of our healthcare system, explaining why so many violent individuals go unnoticed until the violence is already done.

I find it only fitting to end a critique of such a didactic and polarizing piece as the one penned by Ms. Giffords with the same obnoxious guilt trip she imparts to her colleagues:

Shame on you, Congresswoman. Shame on you.

Love it or hate it though, for us here in Boston and Metrowest, it’s ours. And this year some asshole tried to ruin it by (quite literally) blowing up the finish line.

But I’m not writing this article because I think punishment for people like that should be to build another bomb and be forced to (safely) explode themselves. No, the bomber is not the only culprit when it comes to Monday’s atrocities. For the rest of the general yuckiness, you have to look to the media.

Not five minutes after the second bomb went off had Charles P. Pierce already posted to Esquire:

“Obviously, nobody knows anything yet, but I would caution folks jumping to conclusions about foreign terrorism to remember that this is the official Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord, and that the actual date (April 19) was of some significance to, among other people, Tim McVeigh, because he fancied himself a waterer of the tree of liberty and the like.”

That’s right. Before we had any idea of the numbers injured or killed, before most people had located their missing loved ones, Mr. Pierce had seized the opportunity to not-so-subtly point the blame at those who associate themselves with “Patriot’s,” anyone who might resent paying taxes. While he did not go so far to say the words “tea party,” I have read enough of Charlie’s work to know he really really wanted to.

Charles P. Pierce was not alone. CNN, MSNBC, David Axelrod, Barney Frank have all seized the opportunity to perpetuate their political agenda.

As if thinking that people using EBT cards to buy porn may not be the best use of ones tax money is equivalent to wanting to kill innocent people at a road race because it sends some sort of message about how much taxes suck… and this makes sense how? Also, when did we learn that this was really related to the fact that it was tax-day and not that this was an opportunity to attack a large number of people? And, really, now, how would blowing up runners and their families and then not accepting credit with some sort of psychotic manifesto.

At least Pierce is from Boston. At least he’s even watched the Marathon. At least his overreaction might have have the excuse if some too-close-to-home psychological trauma. But using the bombing as a political platform is just plain sick, and all these idiots are guilty.

Do you want to know where I saw my first diagram of a BYO bomb, specifically to be used to attract attention, promote anarchy and speed up the impending “revolution”? Steal this Book. Those are leftist sentiments, and they also leave open the Saul Alinsky principle of “never let a crisis go to waste”- a notion lovingly and frequently applied by leftist radicals. Sacco and Vanzetti have been immortalized for their murders, labeled as innocent anarchists unjustly tried for their political views, and posthumously pardoned in1977 by then Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. Ted Kaczynski- better known as the Unabomber- committed his numerous atrocities under an ideological umbrella that would make him a prime candidate for Senate in Massachusetts. About one year ago members of Occupy Cleveland attempted to bomb a 4-lane bridge to express their politics, and only failed to murder a huge number of people because they were sold faulty parts. And then there’s the infamous Weather Underground. Of course, those bombs were “for a good cause,” and these days former members are more likely to be touted as heroes. Bill Ayers enjoys prestige as the president’s BFF, Kathy Boudin has recently received an appointment to the faculty of Columbia University, and some fictional characters are the subject of the recently released The Company You Keep, in which Susan Sarandon and Robert Redford offer a loving portrayal of the just and righteous reasons that make it okay that the Weathermen set off bombs in public places.

My point, however, is not that we should go pointing fingers in any particular direction (though statistically Left is more likely). Given that the public really seems to know nothing at this point, blaming a leftist radical isn’t any more appropriate than claiming that this incident has “angry white righty” written all over it. How about we all sit back and stick to complaining that they haven’t found him yet…. but if you Liberals are really so upset about randomly exploding bombs and feeling unsafe in crowds, you might want to reconsider who your heroes are.

America—most especially my generation (that is to say the children of the 1990s) is a nation of brats. Perhaps more so than any other citizen in the world, the American has conjured up an immeasurable list of “entitlements” or “rights” which our government is now mandated to provide us. Most Americans are comfortable demanding that the government pay for healthcare, education, our retired years, and then of course those silly added extras, white house tours, congressional earmarking, and hearty salaries for federal employees, to name a few. Add to that a tax code with a baffling number of deductions, exemptions, “write-offs,” and the like, which significantly lessen our government’s revenues while forever increasing the cost of administering the tax code.

President Obama claims to be interested in a balanced approach to solving our fiscal crisis, yet in reality his actions have shown that his interest only lies in executing his political ideology and shielding the great majority of this country from a financial reality that every American should be paying for, all in the interests of liberal politics. The slyly named American Taxpayer Relief Act enacted in January of this year already raised taxes on upper-income earners, that in itself was a horridly ineffective piece of legislation as it did noting to solve the hefty deficit or address the equally problematic national debt and was largely a product of class and blame-the-rich politics that seems to legitimate this sorry Administration. But accepting this victory for the Obama Administration meant moving on to the spending side of the equation for Republicans, and they did just that, yet the Administration refuses to engage in any productive discussion on spending, preferring instead to manipulate the infamous “sequestration” as a means to portray Republicans as the authors of some sort of governmental crisis. In reality, the polls are showing that a great majority of Americans are not at all conscious of any negative impacts from reduced services and it seems that the Administration has backed off from its rather didactic rhetoric directed at Republicans on the automatic spending cuts. In my view the cuts didn’t go far enough, accounting for a small fraction of the deficit our nation racks up each year.

The reality is if we want to solve the fiscal crisis we will need to also address the ever-growing sense of entitlement that has captured this nation, compelled it to vote for a man (twice) who promised them change and brought nothing but the same albeit better spoken, with trimmed suits and friendly smiles, and of course, darker skin. The American will need to accept that he is not entitled to free services from his government along with a sizable tax return at the end of the year, nor to financial support during his retired years, free education, healthcare, etc. Of course I am not suggesting the government stop supporting those in need, with medical conditions and other imaginable situations of the sort that render one sufficiently incapable of providing for themselves. What I am saying is that the politically protected “middle class”—however that historically rhetorical and devastatingly divisive category is defined—will have to be exposed to the reality that is this nation’s fiscal disaster along with everyone else.

When I think of communism, images of Soviet bread lines and the skulls of dead Cambodians come to mind. I think of the wealthy and privileged members of the political upper class and the malnourished, spiritually starved citizens that have little control over their own lives. I think of fleeing Cuban refugees and wasted farmland. I think of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, Ceausescu, Tito, Castro, Hoxha, Chavez… and I think of Marx himself, who penned what turned out to be one of the world’s most influential political manifestos from the comfort of his home office, while the maid his wife’s parents paid for cleaned up after him.

It all seems very depressing and hypocritical. What exactly is appealing about any of it?

My grandfather was not unusual. As a New York City public school teacher in the 1950s, he was only doing what his friends were, much like how today’s Millenials determine their politics. He was raised an Orthodox Jew, and grew up in a devoutly religious household in the Bronx. Like many 20-something Jews, he rejected his religion for something more “revealed.” He chose atheism and the American Communist Party, which kept him busy with organizational meetings, anti-war parades, and discussions of how his wife (who also attended these meetings) could help recruit new members by having more promiscuous sex. Presumably, this all amounted to a great time. Young kids, screwing around, thinking they can change the world. But what is the change they were looking for?

One important concept (which I have trouble coming even close to fathoming) is that communism is viewed as a higher state of being, much like the enlightenment of Eastern religions. Communism can only be borne out of an advanced society, capable of shedding human social constructs such as class, personal gain, individualism, and belief in a power outside oneself. Only when man accepts that he is simply a part of nature can he function in concert with it.

But, unlike the Eastern concept of Enlightenment, a Communist reality cannot come from within. It must be brought on by revolution, even if that revolution is violent and bloody. There is an overarching theme of greater goodness for the sake of the collective, and a strong dependence on external forces for any hope of joy. Inherent in that, of course, is a significant source of frustration. A Buddhist can meditate, a Yogi can starve themselves, a Taoist can strive towards balance. A communist, on his own, cannot be happy. Only after the revolution will there be a better world, and that requires mass mobilization. Anyone who lives in reality knows how just reliable other people are when you need to get something done. Be there, sometime in the distant future, maybe.

The fact of the matter is that collectivism is not natural. Buddists may hold that we are all part of one impermanent universe, but Communists just care about fairness. I can be one with the wave, but I have no interest in being one with the crowd. I take pride in my work, and I do not consider getting paid for my time greed.

Many of these old communists, my grandfather included, seem to have realized that at some point, but only with a certain air of spitefulness. The so-called greatest generation, I have found, is unbelievably selfish. Everything is about their pension or social security check. They bought land and won’t let the kid from across the street walk on their grass. Still a communist at heart until he asked for a Rabbi soon before his last breath, my grandfather believed in no social contract or moral obligation to others. His need for an externally brought-about collective meant he owed the world nothing.

Today’s liberal progressives only differ from Communists by name. Neither philosophy can find anything good about the now. Neither possesses any faith in the individual. They cling to social change as their only hope, when what they really need is to sit still, breathe and figure out why their life as it stands is so meaningless- that last bit never being talked about in your average yoga class. America holds a special appeal to socialist dabblers, because it has fulfilled the economic course predicted by Marx. It’s capitalistically primed and ready. It’s easy to think that government regulations and taxes can fix everything. But this country was founded on the principle of individuality, communism’s greatest foe. Inherent in our Constitution in the notion that government’s only role is to protect the rights of individuals- the smallest of minorities. If those of us who value individual liberty and success are to win the political “struggle” we must make clear how much better life is when one can enjoy the rewards of self-reliance. We must tout the right to ones own life as a specific brand of joy, not just for the one, but for all. Only individuals can have the unique thought necessary to solve tangible problems that affect the many.

A collective is just a sinking ship of fools.

XXXXX, I feel that I must explain myself, although I am not sure what positive effects it may accomplish, if any.

When I engage in conversation or ideological debate, whether online or in person, I expect some degree of rational & cognitive thinking. That is not to say that I do not welcome or expect diversity of opinion. I encourage an intelligent discourse.

However, your contributions to discussions on my Facebook page do not fall into this realm.

We can use last night’s exchange as an example. The discussion was of Che Guevara being used as a cultural icon, ignoring the fact that he was racist, murdered homosexuals, and stifled musical creativity. Your first response to this was “Che Guevara was a conservative,” because he “wanted to expel foreign and imperialist influence from Latin and South America” (although this fits well within his actual Marxist ideology).

You were obviously trolling for an emotional  response from me, because you backed up your personal theory with a video regarding the French Revolution (which I assume you subsequently deleted due to its lack of relevance), and a link to an article on why Ho Chi Minh liked some aspects of Thomas Jefferson. As I stated, they could have all liked hamburgers, too, for all I know, but that doesn’t put them in the same political realm.

Not only did your contributions not fall into the same political realm, but they didn’t even fall into the topic. As always, you posted irrelevant links while failing to explain any rational thought as to their pertinence in an obvious attempt to derail and disingenuously conflate the subject.

When I backed up my own statements with the sources you asked for, you called them “terrible sources,” even though they were 1) a direct quote from Che Guevara’s own memoirs, and 2) a first-hand video interview with a musician that lived in Cuba during the Cuban Revolution. As far as sources usually go, they don’t get much better than that.

I can not waste my time or energy “debating” anyone that disregards basic facts in favor of irrelevance. With that said, the aforementioned exchange was probably the most I’ve seen you attempt coherence during a “debate.” Usually, your contributions consist of:

• posting inapplicable YouTube links,

• personal memes and phrases,

• intentional spamming,

• quotes from Trailer Park Boys,

• or any combination thereof.

All the while, you refer to me as “Thomas,” which no one calls me, either to demean me, or objectify me as a non-person. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter, considering that you, yourself, choose to hide behind the facade of anonymity by not using your actual name online. I will also assume that you veil your own identity out of shame of your own actions.

As if to rationalize your actions, you stated that:

• you play guitar for a living,

• you make more money than I do (although neither of us knows this for a fact), and

• you once dated an attractive woman that was attending law school.

I am not sure what any of these points have to do with anything we have talked about, because you do not express complete or deliberate thought processes.

Admittedly, I did resort to calling you names, including “moron,” in the aforementioned exchange because there is simply no way to communicate with someone that refuses to communicate properly. It’s not that you don’t know how to, but rather that you choose not to as another line of defense for your poorly-rationalized ideology. Simply put, yes, I called you childish names because I was interacting with someone that acts like a child. When I realized that this was the only form of communication that we could possibly sustain between ourselves, I chose to sever that communication.

This is why I have blocked you (or your fake persona?) from having further contact with me. Not because we have different political or social opinions, but because there can be no intelligent line of communication at any level.

In the past, I have had people ask, “Who the hell is that ‘Jesus Christ’ idiot on your Facebook page?”

Moving forward, I won’t have to bother trying to make excuses for your behavior. However, if I should have to, I’ll be sure to tell them that you’re a guitar player that once banged a hot chick.

-TJ Bynes

P.S.:  You had asked if I recall calling you an “anti-Semite” in the past. I believe I do. It was during one of your various conspiracy-theory-driven rants, in which you usually involve fake moon landings and the 9/11 attacks being coordinated by the US Government. On the particular occasion in question, you were discussing how Jews have a conspiracy to attain global domination.

You said that I owe you an apology. I disagree.