Get PJ Media on your Apple

Zombie

Monthly Archives: March 2010

On March 27, 2010, thousands of people gathered in the small town of Searchlight, Nevada, for a political rally.

Just 250 miles away and seven days earlier, there was another political rally of similar size in Los Angeles on March 20, 2010.

The Searchlight rally was generally oriented toward the political “right.”

The Los Angeles rally was generally oriented toward the political “left.”

Now, if you had only the entrenched media as your sole source of information about these rallies, you might likely assume (without even bothering to investigate) that the right-wing rally was an epicenter of hate, racism and craziness, whereas the left-wing rally was undoubtedly about peace, tolerance and rationalism.

Luckily, we no longer have to rely on the mainstream media. In both cases, citizen journalist bloggers were on hand to document the proceedings with eye-opening photo essays:

El Marco: Tea Party Express rally, Searchlight, March 27

Ringo: Anti-war rally, Los Angeles, March 20

Two rallies, not very far apart in time or location — and yet they couldn’t be more different.

I consider myself neither left-wing nor right-wing, and I disagree with one side or the other on various issues — but after viewing these images, I don’t think there’s any question where I’d feel more at ease.

Below is a sampling of images from each rally. (Click on the links above for the full reports.) Scan them and tell me: At which rally would you feel more comfortable?

Show this essay to people you know who are liberals, or conservatives, or middle-of-the-roaders, and ask them: In all honesty, if you had to choose to be associated with the protesters at either rally, which would make you least embarrassed?

They say you are defined by the company you keep. Time to choose:

Right-wing rally, Searchlight, Nevada, March 27, 2010
(Photos by El Marco)


Sarah Palin.


Hannah Giles.

Left-wing rally, Los Angeles, California, March 20, 2010
(Photos by Ringo)

On March 20, a coalition of communist groups, 9/11 “Truth” activists and anti-Israel extremists gathered in San Francisco to protest against — well, just about everything.

The event was in theory an “anti-war” rally timed to coincide with the seventh anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, but since that war is basically over, the anti-war movement now has not only evaporated almost completely but has also lost its focus, as a plethora of tangential issues and petty gripes have taken center stage.

And so, without the veneer of faux-pacifism to disguise the protesters’ true feelings, one stance has emerged as the unifying philosophy:



Anti-Americanism.

The glory days of the 21st-century anti-war movement were in 2003 and 2004, when tens of thousands of naive “average Americans” would show up at each anti-war event. Then, as I documented extensively over the years at zombietime, far-left and extremist groups quickly seized control of the movement and tried to lead the middle-of-the-road protesters leftward politically. But as the radicalism escalated with each successive protest, the sane people all stopped coming, the rallies started getting smaller and smaller, and from 2004 onward it’s been a continuous downward slide.

Now we’ve reached rock bottom. Only a couple thousand people showed up for this year’s protest, all of whom were hardcore radicals. Gone are the naive hangers-on, or anyone in the central 98% of the political spectrum. All that’s left of the anti-war movement are the revolutionaries, the diehards and the crazies.



When I say that the rally was composed of “communist groups, 9/11 ‘Truth’ activists and anti-Israel extremists,” I’m not exaggerating or mischaracterizing the nature of the participants. These people are stone-cold, self-admitted and unapologetic communists. And in equal numbers, Truthers who think the United States perpetrated 9/11 intentionally. And jihad-sympathizers who want Israel to disappear.

Below, I present the photographic evidence proving the presence and dominance of these three groups, along with a new emerging class: people disappointed in and angry with Obama (for being insufficiently left-wing). And at the end of this report we’ll see some other reports of a similar rally in Los Angeles that mirrored this one almost exactly in every respect.

But before we get to these “theme sections,” let’s take a quick tour among the unaffiliated San Francisco eccentrics.



Many of the protesters presented very persuasive and carefully thought-out arguments against the war. For example, this woman really got me to thinking with her message that “War Is Stupid! Stupid!!”



And how can you argue with the logic of “Military Industrial Bullshit!!”?



I weep for my country.



There’s naiveté, but this is something way beyond mere naiveté. What’s the word I’m looking for? Idiocy?

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

Obamandias

March 22nd, 2010 - 4:57 am

Obamandias

I met a traveller from a once free land
Who said: A vast and fathomless ego hath
Scorched the earth. Nearby, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose contempt
And tilted chin, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read.
Few survived that parliamentary Armageddon
The rest were run out of town on a rail, or fled.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Obamandias, king of kings:
Look on my legislation, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the ruins
Of that colossal Self, burnt and bare
The lone and lifeless prairie stretches far away.

[I originally published this essay in December of last year, before I started blogging for PJM. I was planning to write a new last-minute plea for sanity as we approach the zero hour for the health care vote in Congress -- but I inevitably ended up just re-phrasing the ideas contained in my original essay. So rather than repeat myself, I present below a reprise of what many have said is the one and only essay you'll ever need to read about universal health care.]


I watch the debate over health care with amazement. A million words are spoken on the topic with every passing minute, and as far as I can tell no one has ever addressed the real issue that’s upsetting everyone.

So, rather than wait in vain for someone else to finally speak the honest truth about the single-payer system, I’ll just have to do it myself.

Let’s Get Blunt

America should listen to Dr. Earl Sunderhaus. ASAP. Because he holds the key to the health-care debate.

Who? you might ask. Never heard of him.

    Dr. Earl Sunderhaus

I hadn’t heard of him either until I saw a brief article last month in the Raleigh News & Observer with the unsubtle headline “Blunt doctor gets in trouble.”

The article detailed the travails of an elderly North Carolina eye doctor named Earl Sunderhaus who opened a 21st-century Pandora’s Box when he poked a patient in the thigh and informed her that she was too fat. Insulted, the patient complained to the state medical board, and now the doctor might lose his license.

But Sunderhaus was not about to back down:

Sunderhaus notified The News & Observer that he was about to be “screwed” by the medical board. He admitted he told the patient that thick eyeglasses would not cause her to go blind “but her thick thighs and diabetes would.”

“I poked her thigh to emphasize that diabetes is the leading cause of blindness,” he said Thursday. “People have got to accept criticism without getting their bowels in an uproar.”

He then upped the ante by threatening to counter-sue the medical board.

A follow-up article in the Asheville Citizen-Times gave more details about the eccentric doctor, who has notions that range from the kooky (disband the DEA, compulsory vasectomies) to the enlightened. Turns out Dr. Sunderhaus wasn’t merely poking this one patient in particular, but rather poking an entire nation of patients just like her:

“They are chastising me for telling her she should lose some weight because it is raising the cost of health care and it is also bad for her children and she is going to end up with diabetes,” Sunderhaus said. “I had to take three days out of my practice and go down to Raleigh, losing income, just because somebody didn’t like that I told her that she was fat.”

The patient complained that Sunderhaus poked her thigh and told her she was fat, and scolded her as irresponsible for being unemployed and relying on taxpayers to pay for another pregnancy.

“I told her the thick glasses were not going to blind her, she would go blind because of her thick thighs because diabetes is the No. 1 cause of blindness in this country,” Sunderhaus said.

Sunderhaus said he feels it is his responsibility as a physician to tell his patients to live healthier lives and that obesity and diabetes are costing the country millions of dollars.

“Telling this lady that she is fat is the truth, and it’s for her own good health,” Sunderhaus said. “She should be taking better care of herself, and it will be cheaper for us as a society.”

And to drive home his point, he poked the North Carolina Medical Board too,

“I’m the type of guy who can tell them to stick it up their butt because I am 77 years old, and if they don’t let me practice, I’ll just quit.”

Eccentricities aside, Dr. Sunderhaus has spoken the unspeakable, and by so doing has changed the frame of the health-care debate.

Because millions of Americans are secretly thinking the exact same thing as Dr. Sunderhaus and I: Why should we be forced to pay for the costs of other people’s irresponsibility?

Proponents of the single-payer national health plan can’t understand why anyone would want to oppose the faultless idea of universal health care. It’s completely egalitarian, it’s altruistic, and it’s free, they say. What’s not to like?

“Free” is an illusion — but that’s not the point

Well, opponents of universal health care have focused on one particular objection to the idea, conclusively demonstrating that it’s not free at all. It’s “free” only in that the government inserts itself as a middleman into the payment system, so that you pay for your health care indirectly in the form of higher taxes to the government which then turns around and gives the money to doctors and hospitals — rather than individuals paying the doctors and hospitals directly. It just looks “free” on the surface. But someone has to pay for the medical care, and under the single-payer concept, that someone is Uncle Sam. But since Uncle Sam gets all his money from American taxpayers … you end up footing the bill anyway, and also footing the bill of a vast new government bureaucracy.

The argument then devolves into the minutiae of which system is more efficient and cost-effective: The current cumbersome HMO system, which still feels overpriced despite the theory that “market dynamics” should keep costs reasonable; or a new system dependent on government red tape, which long experience suggests will be even more cumbersome, less efficient, and ultimately more expensive overall than the flawed free-market system.

And that’s pretty much where the discussion over health care has stalled: If we have to have a middleman unnecessarily taking a cut of our doctor payments, should that middleman be a private company like an HMO — or should it be the government?

To my mind, that question is actually irrelevant. Because there’s a much deeper philosophical objection to “socialized medicine” that is so un-PC that it is rarely if ever voiced in public. And for that reason, the opponents of socialized medicine never even mention the real flaw in the concept that nags the unconscious of most Americans:

Not all ailments are equal.

Blame: the final taboo

A built-in false assumption with the health-care debate is that sickness is always no-fault sickness. It’s never socially acceptable to assign blame for people’s medical problems — especially blame on the patient.

But I’m not afraid to confess that I’m a judgmental person. And I’m pretty confident that most Americans who oppose socialized medicine share this same judgment: that some people are partly or entirely to blame for their unwellness.

I’m perfectly willing to provide subsidized health care to people who are suffering due to no fault of their own. But in those cases — which, unfortunately, constitute perhaps a majority of all cases — where the unwellness is a consequence of the patient’s own misdeeds, bad habits, or stupid choices, I feel a deep-seated resentment that the rest of us should pick up the tab to fix medical problems that never should have happened in the first place.

I’m speaking specifically of medical problems caused by:

• Obesity
• Cigarette smoking
• Alcohol abuse
• Reckless behavior
• Criminal activity
• Unprotected promiscuous sex
• Use of illicit drugs
• Cultural traditions
• Bad diets

Now, I really don’t care if you overeat, smoke like a chimney, hump like a bunny or forget to lock the safety mechanism on your pistol as you jam it in your waistband. Fine by me. And as a laissez-faire social-libertarian live-and-let-live kind of person, I would never under normal circumstances condemn anyone for any of the behaviors listed above. That is: Until the bill for your stupidity shows up in my mailbox. Then suddenly, I’m forced to care about what you do, because I’m being forced to pay for the consequences.

Reluctant busybodies

What I don’t like about the very concept of universal health care is that it compels me to become my brother’s keeper and insert myself into the moral decisions of his life. I’d rather grant each person maximum freedom. I’d prefer to let people make whatever choices they want, however stupid or dangerous I may deem those choices to be. Just so long as you take responsibility for your actions, and you reap the consequences and pay for them yourself — hey, be as foolish or hedonistic or selfish or thoughtless as you like. Not my business.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

Like starving wolverines in a canvas sack, they tear at each other until there’s nothing left but shredded fur.

That’s essentially what’s happening on the West Coast anarchist scene, as far-far-far-far-left radicals have taken to assaulting the merely far-far-far-left radicals for being insufficiently revolutionary, opening up a huge rift in a political milieu that is now hemorrhaging adherents as we speak.

It all came to a head at this weekend’s Anarchist Bookfair in San Francisco, an annual convention of left-leaning anarchists and anti-civilization activists (which I covered extensively in previous years). One of the invited speakers was Lierre Kieth, a 45-year-old anarchist who spent decades on the cutting edge of environmental extremism, but who recently wrote a book explaining why she abandoned her once strict vegan diet after realizing that it probably wasn’t going to save the Earth after all. She’s still a committed anarchist, mind you, who “believes in militant action, even property destruction, if it can lead to change,” and who wants an end to all mass-production of food (i.e. agribusiness and factory farming), with the goal of restoring the Earth to its pristine pre-civilizational state if possible. Oh, but you see, that’s not radical enough for many of the deranged San Francisco Black Bloc anarchists, who somehow got it into their heads that she was a traitor to the cause and a puppet of the meat industry because she abandoned her vegan diet. And so, while she was speaking at the conference on Saturday, three masked young men rushed onstage and threw cayenne-pepper-laced pies in her face — an incident which was (as is everything these days) naturally captured on video:

Not only did the mostly male audience sit there and do nothing to defend her, but many reportedly cheered and clapped at this own-goal bit of political self-negation:

Pies-in-face attack roils anarchist-vegan world

An ex-vegan who was hit with chili pepper-laced pies at an anarchist event in San Francisco said Tuesday that her assailants were cowards who should direct their herbivorous rage at the powerful – not at a fellow radical for writing a book denouncing animal-free diets.

Lierre Keith, a 45-year-old Arcata resident, was attacked at 2:15 p.m. Saturday at the 15th annual Bay Area Anarchist Book Fair while discussing her 2009 book, “The Myth of Vegetarianism.” A 20-year vegan, Keith now argues that the diet is unhealthy and that agriculture is destroying the world.

As Keith stood at a lectern at the Hall of Flowers in Golden Gate Park, three people in masks and black hooded sweatshirts ran from backstage, shouted, “Go vegan!” and threw pies in her face. While they fled, some in the audience cheered or handed out leaflets.

Despite the fact that Lierre Keith has written that “agriculture is a relentless assault against the planet” and is (compared to the American mainstream) an extreme radical seeking to dismantle industrialized society, her decision to nibble on some free-range chicken and cruelty-free beef has rendered her Public Enemy #1 among the glassy-eyed anarcho-vegan perfectionists who scream “Meat is murder!” and who want to use their last drop of testosterone to implement their philosophy by force, if necessary.

(I should mention that, although I myself am a vegetarian, I fully understand that my diet is simply my personal preference; and I’m perfectly OK with other people eating meat or whatever else they want to eat. For me, politics and lunch do not mix. Not all meat-avoiders are demented revolutionaries.)

The perpetrators bragged about their exploits in this explanatory screed issued at the far-left radical site IndyBay (cut and paste the URL into your browser because IndyBay blocks links from “incorrect” sites like PJM: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/14/18640886.php):

Bound Together Books and PM Press continue to try to prop up and foist veg*n antagonist Lierre Keith onto the radical community in the Bay Area. Today, at the 15th Annual San Francisco Anarchist Bookfair, where she was scheduled to be a featured speaker, Keith was served her just deserts for her obnoxious attacks on veg*ns in The Vegetarian Myth. She was pied in the middle of her speech in the main auditorium at the SF County Fair Building in Golden Gate Park.

Some will condemn the pieing as a useless symbolic action. Others will object to the breaking of decorum at the bookfair. Many of those who might condemn the action would not think twice about praising other symbolic direct actions, pieing or otherwise. It is doubtful if her book were “the anarchist myth” or “prison activist myth” that anyone present would do anything but cheer the action.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

A couple weeks ago I posted a satirical essay called “New Global Warming Data Reveals Accurate ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph,” featuring a chart in the shape of the infamous “hockey stick” — measuring not global warming itself but rather skepticism over global warming.

It was all in good fun, and quickly spread around the Internet far and wide. Needless to say, the “data” underlying the parody was all made up off the top of my head as pure satire, as is plainly obvious from the graph itself.

Little did I know at the time, however, that the Gallup polling organization really has been tracking skepticism about global warming, ever since 1998, with legitimate public opinion surveys. And just yesterday they released the results of their latest poll, which (unsurprisingly) reveals a drastic recent uptick in doubts about global warming among the American public.

Gallup released this chart to accompany their poll results, showing the trend in AGW doubts from 1998 to the present:

I was startled by the resemblance between my entirely made-up chart and this real chart which essentially tracks the exact same trend.

A closer look revealed that a bit of the ol’ hockey-stick-trickery (hockey-stickery?) was used on Gallup’s “AGW is exaggerated” chart itself: the percentage range of opinion is “flattened” somewhat, to make the dramatic upsurge in AGW skepticism seem not as large as it could be shown. This graphing technique is the exact opposite of the Al-Gore-ian graphs, which are designed to visually emphasize the dimensions of global warming as starkly as possible.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

The Footprint Theory of Life

March 11th, 2010 - 12:37 pm

I made a resolution to lower my carbon footprint. Everyone‘s doing it. They say it’s good for the Earth!

I tried my best at first. But the more I learned about carbon footprints, the harder it became.

Turns out that just about every single thing I do uses up carbon! Since almost every form of transportation — trucks, cars, trains, planes, ships — uses petroleum-based fuel, and since petroleum is mostly just carbon mixed up with hydrogen, then everything I use, eat, touch or want requires carbon combustion to reach me. Damn! Every manufactured product of any kind is made up of raw materials that were dug up or retrieved by fuel-burning machines, then transported in fuel-burning trucks or trains to huge plants to be processed or refined, then transported in fuel-burning trucks or trains to different factories where they’re made into everyday objects, then they’re again transported by ship or plane or train or truck to the store, where I go to buy them. That’s a hell of a lot of carbon being used! Even if I ethically bicycle to the store to do my shopping, that’s only, at best, a 1% carbon savings over the amount of carbon that was required to get whatever I’m buying to the store in the first place.

But then I looked down at my bike and realized that it too followed the same high-carbon manufacturing trajectory to reach me when I bought it! And the tires on the wheels, and the steel in the frame, and the . . . well, it all just became too carbon-y to even ponder. Even worse, I just found out that the gasping and panting I do when bicycling is just another way of expelling carbon into the atmosphere! Has anybody calculated whether 20 minutes of heavy exhalations from bicycle riding produces more or less carbon than the three minutes of car exhaust it would take to travel the same distance? So much research is required! It’s simply overwhelming.

Why only carbon?

It began to dawn on me that my carbon usage was just the tip of the iceberg. I was literally devouring the Earth little by little as I used up all the other elements as well! Forget about my carbon footprint: What about my aluminum footprint? My oxygen footprint? My plutonium footprint? If I want to be serious about “living lightly on the land,” I feel that a complete inventory of ALL my elemental footprints is in order. And through that process, perhaps we all can learn to lower our footprints of each and every natural element.

Let us begin the inventory.

Iron Footprint
The Earth’s very core is solid iron; when we use it up, it’s like stabbing Mother Earth in the heart. And when I read that “Iron ore may be more integral to the global economy than any other commodity, except perhaps oil,” I begin to understand that my consumption of iron is contributing to the existence and ongoing success of the capitalist economy. Shame! And when you think about all the smelting and melting and schmelting that goes on to turn iron ore into steel, you can see that the very creation of iron-based products is itself a major contributor to carbon usage too. So if I want to get serious about lowering my carbon footprint, I’ve got to lower my iron footprint first.

But where to begin? I look around, and it’s hard to see anything that is entirely iron-free. Every vehicle, every machine, every appliance, every gadget, even the frickin’ forks! The building I’m sitting in right now is held together with iron nails, fer chrissakes. There’s no escape from the ubiquitous iron footprint!

And so, I resolve that: If I ever build a house, I’m going to do it like the old-school Japanese craftsmen, and design the whole thing to fit together without a single nail. Forks henceforth shall be abandoned in favor of bamboo chopsticks. And — though this part will be admittedly a little more difficult — I vow to shun any object that was ever transported in or created by a machine containing iron. If we want to ever smash the iron hegemony, the time to start is now!

Uranium Footprint

  Uranium footprint.

There are those who insist that the only way to lower your carbon footprint is to raise your uranium footprint. Hell, even Obama has started saying it! WTF??? When did the first “green president” become the first “glow-in-the-dark president”? Anybody remember a little place called Three Mile Island? I say that the choice between carbon-based energy and uranium-based energy is a false dichotomy! The key is to stop generating and using energy in any form. Even our current Science Czar John Holdren once pointed out that it’s not greenhouse gases that will cause global warming, but simply excess energy generation itself, regardless of the source of the energy: “The remaining major means of interference with the global heat balance is the release of energy from fossil and nuclear fuels. As pointed out previously, all this energy is ultimately degraded to heat. What are today scattered local effects of its disposition will in time, with the continued growth of population and energy consumption, give way to global warming.”

So, Mr. Obama, will you listen to your Science Czar for once? Why’d you bother appointing him anyway? All energy — including nuclear energy — is bad, and causes global warming! If this planet is to survive, we must decrease our uranium footprint. To that end, I will stop utilizing any electrical power, because my utility company (like many others) gets a substantial percentage of its energy from nuclear power plants — and most of the rest from carbon sources.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

On Thursday, a “9/11 Truth” fanatic named John Patrick Bedell started shooting at the Pentagon and managed to wound two guards before they mercifully put him out of our misery.

We now know that the guy thought the government and the Bush family were behind the 9/11 attacks (or “demolitions” as he called them), and was basically frothing at the mouth with Bush hatred.

Now, I’ve been to innumerable “Truther” rallies over the last 8 years, and can say with some confidence that about 98% of folks who think 9/11 was a hoax are left-wingers, or at the very least fit in very comfortably in the left-wing milieu, since the impetus behind Truthism is to undermine the basis for Bush’s “War on Terror,” an impetus which is also a cornerstone of modern Leftist thought as well.

So far, however, I’ve noticed a deafening quietude on the left-leaning blogs about this guy’s affiliations and belief systems. Those brave enough to troll leftist comments sections have noted mumblings therein that the guy was probably a secret “teabagger,” despite all evidence to the contrary.

Compare this to the response in the leftosphere when Joseph Stack flew his plane into an Austin IRS building a couple weeks earlier. Despite leaving a suicide note that approvingly cited Karl Marx and that condemned capitalism as nothing but “greed,” he was pilloried by every left-leaning site as a right-wing hitman who epitomized the inherent violence of the Tea Party movement — because he had anti-government feelings.

Now, just for a moment, let’s set aside the false guilt-by-association game everyone’s always playing. We all know that John Patrick Bedell and Joseph Stack are basically insane, plain and simple — as are any number of similar whackjobs who periodically go loco and erupt into violence. Violent psychopaths often incorporate some seemingly random overarching theme into their mindset, and on occasion that theme involves politics. Whenever someone like Bedell or Stack goes ballistic, every pundit jumps into the fray and tries to spin the outburst as “exemplifying” the political viewpoint of those with whom the pundit disagrees.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

Join the Cocoa Party!

March 2nd, 2010 - 1:09 pm

Tired of the Coffee Party and the Tea Party? We’re the newest game in town!

I woke up this morning and realized I didn’t want tea or coffee. I wanted hot cocoa!

So I turned on my computer and in a few minutes founded a new political movement — The Cocoa Party!

Yes, it was that simple.

Then I got one of my friends at the newspaper where I used to work to violate all professional journalistic ethics by writing a puff-piece about me without revealing that I used to work there. Thanks!

Also, thanks for not mentioning that I used to really really really like Kool-Aid.

Now, in between fielding 100 emails an hour from new members wanting to start chapters from Wasilla to Waco, Twittering 17 witty tweets per minute, fielding calls from TV producers and journalists, and weeping with joy and sincerity about our wonderful country, I barely have time to consider that I’ve just revolutionized politics — all before lunch!

But enough about me. This is about The Cocoa Party!

MISSION
The Cocoa Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see chocolate in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of chocolate, but the expression of our collective will to drink hot cocoa, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as cocoa-drinkers. As voters and caffeinated volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward the addition of those little marshmallows, and hold accountable those who want to ban hot beverages altogether.

We’re so grassroots, we’re weedroots.

About Us

We are diverse — whipped cream, cinnamon, mint-flavored, soy, or straight-up old-fashioned.

We are 100% weedroots. No astroturf Obama-campaigning former New York Times employees in the Cocoa Movement, no sirree! No grassroots racist fascist redneck Neanderthal Teabaggers either! And no hyper-partisan strategists calling the shots in this movement. We are a spontaneous and collective expression of our desire to forge a culture of ludicrous propaganda that is entirely blame-oriented.

We demand a government that responds to the needs of the majority of its hot beverage drinkers as expressed by our choice of mugs or cups; NOT corporate interests as expressed by misleading coffee advertisements posing as legitimate journalism!

We want a society in which hot cocoa is treated as sacrosanct and ordinary citizens drink it out of a sense of civic duty, civic pride, and a desire to taste something delicious. The Cocoa Party is a call to action. Our Founding Fathers and Mothers gave us an enduring gift — chocolate — and we must drink it to meet the challenges that we face as a nation.

Oh wait — I forgot: We don’t hate those Teabaggers or those upstart Java Jivers! No really, we don’t! In fact, we’re just like you guys. Honestly. You prefer one kind of hot beverage, we prefer another kind — it’s all good. Can’t we all just get along? But remember, there’s only room for one hot-beverage-weedroots movement in this sweet country of ours — so abandon your deeply held beliefs and principles and join our 100% authentic political uprising today!

Update: The Cocoa Party now has its own Facebook page!