Hopefully, what with all these protests and movements, we might shake up the status quo around here. While I doubt it’s true reach, we can always be rest assured that the elites will continue acting as if nothing is going wrong. Your friendly neighborhood newspaper will go ahead and keep pushing that agenda because they need the readership. I often wonder if editors or publishers read half the shit they publish on a daily basis.

I say this because it’s become rather apparent that the days of “blank v. blank” are getting behind us. I can’t help but cringe when the old conservative v. liberal article whips around to kick a hot soupy pile of what used to be the dead horse. Tom Purcell becomes our focus today, he’s writing of Barry Manilow maybe not being a liberal democrat, you know because 120% of Hollywood is bleeding heart liberal.

It’s funny the straw men of each respective “side” if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty. The right-wing seems to think that Michael Moore represents all of Hollywood, and the left wing seems to think Darth Vader is real and pours tons of his galactic space bucks in to the TEA Party (who is also, as you know, racist). There’s evidence to the contrary readily available, but then, where would all these hack pundits go when trying to maintain the status quo?

Tom Purcell seems to be under the impression that conservatives are “logical and analytical about issues” and liberals “tend to react with their hearts and emotions” which is parlance for “liberals = pussies” in my opinion. I had to step back when reading this article, because I couldn’t believe that’s 2011 and people are STILL pulling this bullshit. It’s somehow not apparent to Mr. Purcell that our country has been pretty divided as of late, and it has nothing to do with conservative/liberal nonsense! America is experiencing real pain, and he wants to whip out ideas that were stale on delivery in 2004!

But then, I got to thinking, he’s only half right. The problem is he’s not distinguishing between big “C” conservative and little “c” conservative. If he did, this article would be more cogent. I can see a Conservative perhaps being analytical and logical, I mean they had William Buckley, who hated ignorance amongst the right wing, and feared that it would tear the conservative argument asunder had they been given root. Today’s Conservative powerhouses of thought are NOT logical and analytical, no matter how hard they try to prove otherwise. Ann Coulter and Charles Krauthammer can support these supposed definitions? I scoff at this notion! Both are peddlers in the hyperbole and flat out wrongitude! Ann Coulter is an expert at crafting the longest book titles known to man, over loading Lexus searches, and fucking Bill Maher. There’s nothing substantive to anything she says. It’s part of the reason the right wing gets so much shit from the left wing, it’s shrill non stop harping, with nothing to anchor it with. She’d be more compelling if 2% of what she said was marginally true. When her and Laura Ingham broke down Sarah Palin a few weeks back, they came across as mean girls finally unleashing the cat claws. It was pitch perfect! This doesn’t necessarily help my argument, but it boils down that just she alone has near vaporous grasp of anything analytical or logical.

Analytical and logical people, I think, are more adaptive than the conservative. Big “C” conservatives, if they’re worth their salt wouldn’t harp on the same bullet points day in and day out. Any length of time studying conservative outlets proves this lack of logical and analytical basis. The ONLY approach to fix the debt “crisis” is the same thing: cut, cut, cut! “Don’t look at it too long, your face will melt“-like dealings with anything difficult to grasp? If conservatives were logical and analytical they’d be able to parse their argument down so that the masses could understand, and maybe, join their side. But no, THEY deal in hearts and emotions. Like tugging on evangelicals with moral and social issues to buoy a vote. I cannot believe that yet again, and even in the state level, that conservatives yet again get voted en masse in to office proclaiming to fix joblessness and the economy, yet mostly pass laws regarding abortion clinics, voter fraud, and all those wedge issues that as of right now, need no more clarification or dealings. If anything more heavy handedness is going to cost more jobs. That was your mandate?

What of all these current republican mouthpieces flapping about in the media. Your Sarah Palin’s, Herman Cain’s, Rick Perry’s. What exactly is so logical and analytical here? Does a logical person use prayer as a campaign decision tool? What about prefacing a pile of horseshit rhetoric with “I don’t have the facts to back this up but…” that’s analytical and logical where? If Mr. Purcell’s argument that most conservatives are engineers and businessman then how do you explain the Conservatives that lead the party? Most of them are not engineers or businessmen, most are failed actors, writers and radio shock jocks who share the more common predilection of money grubbing like the prostitutes of yesterday and today. I’m sure one day that a multi-millionaire liberal interest could get them to change their tune. It’s obvious that most of them could be easily swayed.

I think the biggest sign of any modern conservative is the ability to yell over someone making a point, and being able to weave any talking point in to a discussion. I guess some care could be made that it’s logical/analytical in some way.

The ultimate point of all this is to rebuke Mr. Purcell’s aged notion of a left and right at the bottom level. That these conservative v. liberal trivialities only exist in the imaginations of writer’s looking to maintain a tired status quo. Party affiliation’s fall out of favor once you and your neighbor realize that you’re both part of the party of fucked, whose only resolve is to somehow get unfucked in this current economic situation. So the Liberal vs. Conservative while still white hot on the 24 hour “news” networks, is essentially a first class problem to the liberals and conservatives who share much more in common. In the face of all that, to say that one side solely possess a superior trait over the other is not only illogical but devoid of any analytic thought, much like Tom Purcell’s editorial.