Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Not a War on New Year's?

Posted by Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon at 3:50 PM on December 31, 2007.


There are a number of reasons they should try to wipe this day off the calendar.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Click for larger version

Well, the War On Christmas has come and gone, and the Christmas defenders having "won" it again this year, it strikes me that in the wingnut way of thinking, this is an ideal time for a preemptive strike against the liberals and some sick, perverse holiday that liberals probably love. True, the War On Christmas was utter bullshit, but like with god, Ronald Reagan's greatness, and WMDs in Iraq, that's no reason for your average wingnut to even hesitate to believe whole-heartedly. Which is why I think that this is a good year for the wingnuts to declare a war on New Year's Eve this year. There are a number of reasons they should try to wipe this day off the calendar. (Feel free to share your reasons in comments.)

* The imagery of a baby stepping in to wipe out an older person is a direct assault on traditional values, and probably was invented by rappers.
* The open embrace of debauchery, such as the kissing and the drinking, is most definitely not acceptable. Debauchery is something you do, of course, but hide in airport bathrooms or do without birth control when you're 16 and act gobsmacked that you got pregnant. New Year's Eve violates the requirement that you hide and act ashamed of your debauchery.
* Let's face it; 2008 is not looking good for conservatives. Unless the full court pro-Republican press from the media does its job, we're looking at a shoo-in for the Democratic candidate for President, and probably another round of seat-grabbing in Congress by Democrats. It's as good a year as any to demand that we stop the march of time, which would have the side benefit of forcing the Iraq War to go on indefinitely as planned.
* Now that I think about it, the march of time is basically the main villain, next to the damn hippies, in the wingnut worldview. Why is it not still 1953? Because we kept letting new years just sneak past us is why.
* True, the superstition that says who you're kissing at midnight is who you'll be kissing all year seems pro-monogamy on its surface. But the underlying assumption--that there's a chance you could have more than one kissing partner in a year otherwise--demonstrates an easy-going attitude to rank promiscuity.
* After New Year's Day, people start taking down their holiday decorations. Therefore, it's part of the War On Christmas. That alone justifies a preemptive strike.

I'm not sure what the tactics in the War on New Year's would be. I assume something similar to the supposed tactics in the War on Christmas. Refusing to wear funny hats, going to bed at 10pm, acting disgusted at the very idea of champagne, acting like putting "2007" on your checks starting tomorrow was deliberate instead of a moment of absent-mindedness?

Open thread standards apply. What's your resolutions? What do you hope will happen in the New Year? Predictions on the primaries? Can the Democrats actually blow this election? Feel free to discuss these topics and anything else you want.

Digg!

Tagged as: conservatives, holidays, christmas, new year's

Amanda Marcotte co-writes the popular blog Pandagon.


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I'll give it a shot, Amanda!
Posted by: factbased on Dec 31, 2007 6:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reasons for wingnuts to declare war on the New Year.

- Doesn't everything need a war? If not, how can you tell who won?

- To protest the Common Era designation of years, even though they don't know what A.D. meant.

- The diabolical Yooropeans have arranged things so they get to celebrate it before the U.S.

And last but not least:

- Because nobody invites the wingnuts to the really good parties!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Rose Bowl Parade
Posted by: Miki on Jan 1, 2008 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Rose Bowl Parade must be a devious plot to promote the "gay agenda." Flowers on floats?!? Clowns?!? High schoolers forced to wear fluffy hats and march?!? It's one step from a pride parade. It serves to make the rest of snowy America miserable with that liberal Californicating sunshine.

~Amanda, your little piece was fun. Thanks and Happy New Year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a great idea!
Posted by: Lauren on Jan 1, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Jewish new year is in September, I want to use that one. Do we have to pick just one? I don't want to give up on Winter solstice.

Also, I'm not fond of the name of the month of January, it is too dreary. Let's have something more cheerful. Let's give it to the atheists to rename, that'll keep them busy forever, because they'll never agree (LOL), and if they do, no one will agree with them.

We could make up these fake wars forever. One thing I can say for them, better than real war. That's not funny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I found a real one, God/author view of the constitution. Say what?
Posted by: Lauren on Jan 1, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Andrew Sullivan's blog

A reader writes:

Ron Paul's religious AND constitutional fundamentalisms are anti-historical, and consequently anti-literate, as all forms of fundamentalism are. As a Christian fundamentalist believes in the supposed "literal" truth and total organic unity of the bible from beginning to end (the "authored by God" position), failing to acknowledge the thousand of years of changing circumstances and beliefs that produced the various texts that we now call scripture, the constitutional fundamentalist views the U.S. Constitution as a document produced by a group of like-minded individuals with one definitive goal in mind.

For Paul and others, "the forefathers" are our surrogate God/author; the strangest thing about this point of view is that it directly contradicts their mantra that our country was founded by "rugged individualists." How can our forefathers be both a group of individualists AND a collective hive-mind? The God/author view of the constitution ignores all readily and widely available documentation of the circumstances which produced the Constitution, which shows us a group of men with a wide variety of opinions on how to deal with the important issues of their time and create a fair representative government of the people. The Constitution is a series of compromises that this group of individuals settled on, not the "word of God."


I find this argument fascinating, Constitutional Fundamentalism, wow.

I suppose I was the one who argued it had 'word of god' status in the first place. I certainly claimed it as a holy document of my religion. It is, you know, and there is a very simple explanation to the constitutional fundamentalist position.

They missed it, anyone else want to take a shot? Andrew will read your arguments, he just loves a good debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I found a real one, OK Posted by: Lauren
» RE: just talking to myself Posted by: Lauren