Right.
Some background.
A guy - Martin Lewis - posted a blog entry over on the Huffington Post the other day. In it, he recommended that the military overthrow President Bush, and "restore order."
At any rate, several of the things he said were, in fact, felonies.
And you know, some conservatives can read.
So they commented, and pointed out the fact that he should be arrested immediately for treason. Because, you know, it's ok to say "President Bush is a screaming idiot assclown cockmonkey," but it's really NOT ok to advocate armed rebellion against the government, or to attempt to incite the military to overthrow the government.
His response? "It was a satire, you're just too dumb to get it."
Well, my reaction on reading this was quite simple: bullshit.
I'm not the smartest person in the world by a long mile, certainly, but I am quite well-read and fairly bright, and I've never had any trouble seeing the attempts at humor made by people known to be comical.
However, this particular writer has never published any other article intended to be humorous; he's on a site devoted to dead-serious, although loony, political commentary and discussion; and frankly, I don't see anything remotely non-serious in this article, at all.
Invoking the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and quoting extensively from the United States Code, is of course always good for a laugh.
Now, my intent had originally been to do the same thing, satirically; to quote, at great length, the United States Code, and the UCMJ, as reasons Martin Lewis should be arrested for treason and jailed.
Until I found out that someone else had done it first, and better.
What follows is the full text of a comment left on the article discussing this brouhaha over at HotAir.com:
"
Dear Martin,
Satirize this, why dontcha?
You committed 5 felonies in your “satire,â€� specifically:
18 USC Sec. 2389 Recruiting for service against United States
Sec. 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war by inciting insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States
Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally, by advising, counseling, urging, or in any manner causing or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States
Sec. 2384. Seditious conspiracy
Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
So, given that in the United States, the ordinary American has the right to make a citizen's arrest of suspects committing or having committed a felony, consider yourself on notice: IF I SEE YOU ON THE STREET, I WILL ATTEMPT TO AFFECT YOUR ARREST. Please don't resist.
Nah. Don't worry. It's ONLY SATIRE! I don't mean it. Just like you didn't mean it.
georgej on August 27, 2007 at 6:25 AM
"
Dear "georgej": You. Are. Awesome. I bow before your total pwnage of this rampaging assclown.
For the rest of you; sorry I've been slacking off. Don't worry, as the political fray begins to take off, leading up to November next; I will pick up the pace a bit.
I will make a few predictions, for the coming election:
1. There will be constant threats of terrorist action - they've already begun - running all the way through the election, at which time they will mysteriously vanish. [*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #1 at the bottom.*]
2. There will be sex scandals "discovered" about each and every Republican candidate.[*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #2 at the bottom.*]
3. There will be financial misdealings present in the portfolio of every single candidate with poll numbers over 1%. Don't worry, as we close on election time I will break out the hard numbers to back this one up. [*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #1 at the bottom.*]
4. EVERY SINGLE PERSON RUNNING will get "swift-boated" by some group or another. [*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #1 at the bottom.*]
5. Regardless of who is elected, regardless of party, regardless of publically announced sentiment, or position, or support - or lack thereof - for the war in Iraq; the United States will not pull out the bulk of our troops from Iraq in the next 3 years. REMEMBER I SAID THIS. Especially after the election. Watch as all the pre-election rhetoric turns into so much hot air, and vanishes. [*Edited to Add: or, fuck the elections; watch as this dries up and blows away long before the elections... Sometimes I hate to be right. Click here.*]
6. The only two candidates running who have decent platforms will not get their party nominations. (That'd be Bill Richardson of the Dems, and Ron Paul of the GOP.)[*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #2 at the bottom.*]
7. At the end of the election, no matter who wins, or by how much, the Democrats will spawn a horde of lawsuits.
8. At the end of the election, no matter who wins, or by how much, there will have been overwhelming election fraud, across the board, in every major voting district. By both sides.
9. No matter the outcome of the election, there will be a slew of angry rants by people with tiny brains, demanding the removal of the electoral college, as though that would somehow improve things.[*Edited to add: Sadly, true! See my note #2 at the bottom.*]
And one more, just as a bonus:
10. If California's measure to split the electoral vote based on the state's popular vote percentage passes, our next president will be a Republican.
I'll explain that last one very briefly.
The way the electoral college works is actually very simple. each state has a certain percentage - based on population - of the fixed number of electors. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote for that state then receives ALL the electoral votes for that state.
The Democrats have been close in the last two elections solely by virtue of the fact that California has 55 electoral votes, more than any other state.
California has a measure on the ballot this year - which would make it effective for the '08 elections - which would split the electoral votes based on the result of the popular vote.
To wit, in the last election, instead of Kerry getting 55 electoral votes from California, and Bush getting none, had this measure passed, Kerry would have received 33, and Bush 22.
The Democrats - I hate to break this to those of you who may be of that persuasion - DO NOT POSSESS an electoral map capable of electing a president that does not include all 55 votes from California.
In other words, without California, they can kiss the presidency goodbye for a long, long time indeed.
Let's put this in perspective: in 2004, Bush got 286 electoral votes, and Kerry got 252. That 252 INCLUDES all 55 from California.
Had the electors in fact been split, it would instead have been 308 to 230.
This is because - despite their assurance that it is a bastion - the Dems nearly lost California. It was actually astonishingly close; the percentages represented there are a bit illusory, because the number of actual voters wasn't that big. The Kerry majority in California was a little over 1.2 million - in a state in which 12 million voters showed up.
Now, take that one step further. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, California seems to be doing quite well under The Governator - and he has shown an astonishing ability to get the voters to the polls.
What might happen if the Dems flat-out LOST California? Hmmmm?
Blame it on election fraud?
Sue everyone?
The world may never know. Or, we might just find out in November 08.
Wish us luck.
[*Edited to add note #1: all three of these predictions are addressed at length in this post.*]
[*Edited to add note #2: these three are addressed in this post.*]
