Editorial - You don't HAVE to vote

The political season is now fully upon us, and with that comes the civic duty of all Americans to elect leaders and representatives with whom we share the same goals, opinions and dreams. Our forefathers have fought and died for our numerous rights, and it would be the most vile affront to their memory for the people of this great nation to sit idle while others make such important decisions for them. Everyone eligible needs to get out and vote this year... right?

Here's the short answer: no. While laws prohibit minors, felons, and those deemed by a court to be "mentally incapable" from voting, there is a sizable portion of our citizenry in Texas who shouldn't vote: stupid people.

Let me elaborate on this with an example: a man named Bubba registers to vote out of obligation not to seem un-patriotic in front of his co-workers. Although vaguely engaged in the political process, Bubba pays only passing attention to political debates. He skips through political reporting on TV and online, only focusing on major scandals and other issues which he may be caught in a discussion about later. In general, he learns very little about the issues at stake. The only thing Bubba has going for him is a faint association with one of the major political parties - most likely the party in favor by his colleagues and friends. So Election Day comes and Bubba heads to the polls, but with what? What is he really doing? There is no cause he supports. There is no underdog candidate, short on funds but long on character, in dire need of his support.

In simple terms, Bubba is blindly casting a vote - one which will help to shape the future of our state - based on the weakest of credentials. In many cases, this fictional character would vote for a candidate who would actually have a worse impact on the district than his opponent, but how could Bubba know? Without a working knowledge of the political system, as well as a basic overview of the candidates and their positions, Bubba's vote is much like a stray bullet: just as powerful as any other, but more likely to injure someone.

Closed-mindedness saturates The Lone Star Times... surprise!

In my recent venture to find a Texas-centric blog article with a less-than-100% partisan slant, I must admit that several hours into the ordeal, I wanted nothing to do with politics what-so-ever, nor the narrow minded automatons who blog about it. Therefore, with that spirit of frustration and disillusionment, I would like to introduce this article from the Lone Star Times:

In this piece ironically titled The Messiah, acclaimed political savant The Panda Man (Christian name: Jeremy Weidenhof) addresses his audience, which must certainly be described as hard-line conservative (to say that the United Rednecks of America are his target audience would be to venture into the well-worn path of Ad Hominem fallacies that Mr. Weidenhof has so explertly blazed; I'll try to keep it professional for you). Throughout his brief diatribe, the author makes several dozen points, but as you may have guessed, not one of them in any way reflect his political credentials (or lack thereof). To the contrary, by his cavalier attitude you can read a genuine disdain for "journalistic conventions" as well as other forms of "proof" that Texans would do well to take their bureaucratic cues from a "Panda."

Lack of ethical or logical appeals to reason aside, Mr. Weidenhof does have one strong suit which he tirelessly exploits throughout the piece: his emotional appeal. Colorful phrases and words abound as the author is set on a path to paint Sen. Obama as a Pied Piper, a socialist, and "Jimmy Carter’s second term." Not content to bash the liberal candidate alone, Weidenhof alludes to the Democratic Party as "Media Disciple Roadies... in their Yellow Media Bubble." While a painfully stereotypical culling of small-town xenophobes could be expected to endure this shallow sermon, the average reader will surely see it for what it is: a stalwart attempt to redefine the phrase "scare tactics."

Having read the article several times over, I am still at a loss as to how such insupportable fallacies can be labeled as journalism, much less find an audience. The Panda Man has contributed absolutely nothing to the political debate here, short of a virulent "us against them" attitude -- an attitude which only the most closed-minded sycophants must enjoy.