Tag Archives: election

UPDATES: Walker County and great Frying Pan vs. Skillet debate

With all the insanity in America’s politics, I am pleased to report that one positive in this mess has occurred. Though old news, the new Sole Commissioner, High Commander and Eternal Leader of Walker County, Georgia is now firmly entrenched in his new position. Shannon Whitfield, who was able to easily defang and disembowel Bebe Heiskell in the 2016 election by a score of 3 trillion neurons to 2.1, is apparently managing to score points with voters on the simple fact that he keeps schedules consistent and has not traded away star players to the opposition in exchange for defensive coordinators who blow 20 point leads in the Super…oh crap, I’ve got the Atlanta Falcons on the brain. Sorry.

Shannon Whitfield.  Wait, wasn’t this guy in a Super Bowl commercial for avocados?

Whitfield, despite his obviously improved status as Not Being Bebe Heiskell, has still rankled some voters by posting edited county commission meetings online instead of the raw feeds. Walker County gods on high, however, are apparently pleased with Whitfield’s performance, as a recent 1.8 earthquake indicates (previous earthquakes have been in the 4s, meaning Heiskell’s soul has obviously arrived at Satan’s mailbox, postage due.) Still, the City of LaFayette continues to function as always, with its fine collection of shops, gas stations, and a convenience store actually named “Yanks” (seriously.) It also continues to enjoy its status as Unofficial Job Haven for Wanted Criminals, as the county has had apparent known of a wanted criminal from Colorado working as a 911 dispatcher for the county for some time. Perhaps the Heiskell curse continues, but large predatory bird sightings are on the wane, so there has be obvious improvement – such as employees actually being able to now cash their paychecks.

No word as to whether “Thad” was available for comment. (rim shot)

This, however, pales in comparison to a far more serious matter facing our nation today from a political standpoint. Today, this writer took the liberty of challenging the political status quo and asking an ultra-controversial question: what the hell is the difference between a skillet and a frying pan?

A query which has dogged cooks for eons, the notion of a frying pan and skillet being different things has been a perplexing issue. Gigantic studies using massive federal block grants issued via presidential tweets have been suggested, especially since the skillet lobby has stated an unofficial goal of “Making Cooking with Skillets Great Again.” Of course, I chose to use the definitive source of wisdom and knowledge to answer this question once and for all…

My Facebook Feed.

My friends/readers/followers/associates of ill refute/various shape-shifting entities from the Gamma Quadrant all weighed in, and the results were very clear: no really knows for sure, and everyone wonders why the hell I was even asking that question. Of course, that would stop me from sharing some of the answers with you, my loyal and delusional reading audience, some of whom are obviously not aware of the need to stay off the road after heavy medicinal or recreational relaxant use.  We know that won’t happen, so here we go – actual answers from actual readers of my feed:

Until the horse WHACKS you with it. And then you STILL won’t know what to call it!

“A skillet has straight high sides. Same flat wide bottom so u can fry or search, but the the high straight sides like a pot allow us to add more stuff, especially liquids and put on a lid.”


“Weight. A skillet also says, ‘What’s this non-stick crap???'”

“One of those questions that just simmers…” (Honorable Mention for Best Answer)

“One you fry in, one’s a band.”

“They both cook eggs. So, none.”

and the Best Answer of All, which actually led to me spraying coffee on my monitor in such a fashion several wet wipes were needed…

“The difference between a frying pan and a skillet? The size of the knot on your head if you upset the cook.”

Bear in mind, all these answers are moot when one considers the fact that, when used properly, both pans and skillets make excellent counterweights for mousetraps created by grey and white cartoon cats. Still, we must never forget the most important part of this research, that terminology can vary widely from region to region in our nation, and that such things as “homophones” will always be targeted for persecution by moralist elements who obviously didn’t pay attention in English class.

If you are still unsure about how to approach this debate or how to understand the jokes in this post, feel free to contact Sole Commissioner Shannon Whitfield’s office. Operators are standing by to hire you now, provided you’ve been arrested in at least one jurisdiction.  I’m putting my application in tomorrow.

Clinton’s defeat is a lesson in the Law of Unintended Consequences

President Barack Obama’s term is winding down, and there is much apprehension about President-elect Donald Trump, and a ton of “why’s” about Hillary Clinton’s defeat.  Washington Post writer Christopher Ingraham, in a rather insightful article, focused on – pardon the pun – the political elephant in the room:  those rural white voters who, rather than supporting Donald Trump, flipped to Hillary Clinton, bucking the national demographic trend.  What one voter gave as his reasoning for voting for Hillary was stark – Trump struck him as being like a “bomb,” and hoping Congress holds the new President accountable.  Another voter, Ed Dahle, a retired school teacher in rural Red Lake County, Michigan (61 percent of their citizens voted for Trump), gave the Washington Post an honest, yet brutal, assessment as to why Clinton lost.

“When Hillary was up to speak (during the debates), some of the people just did not feel that ease of conversation,” he said. “They felt there was like a screen or something between them and her. And that’s why so many people turned.” – Retired teacher Ed Dahle, speaking to the Washington Post.

That quote really cuts to the quick of the matter.  Yet there is another factor which many folks simply refuse to acknowledge, and that is that Clinton’s loss may have, indeed, been the result of the Law of Unintended Consequences, particularly President Obama’s administration and governing style.  Obama’s own administration had been reeling from a series of policy gaffes and “activism through inaction” with regards to the wave of attacks on police offers throughout the nation.  Also, many in the media openly lamented how the President seemed to have “checked out” over the past few years, and experts feared Obama’s trademark stoicism was fostering an impression of indifference to the problems faced by rural and working Americans, especially those suffering from skyrocketing health insurance premiums caused by the Affordable Care Act’s numerous provisions and loopholes.  There were also pundits who warned Obama’s body language and attitude towards Republican voters, and even moderate independents who supported him in 2008 and 2012, could badly damage Clinton’s chances of victory.

RELATED:  Right and Left agree – Obama has “checked out.”

In short, President Obama had a historic opportunity as president and, frankly, became Hillary’s own worst enemy.

Let’s be fair; President Obama, beyond his status as the “First Black President,” actually accomplished some pretty impressive things.  Even Trump admitted parts of the Affordable Care Act are useful and must be maintained.  Obama was the President who gave the order to eliminate Osama Bin Laden, and did have a hand in deals to keep General Motors and Chrysler afloat, saving thousands of American jobs.  His administration also maintained or expanded programs to help mortgage holders navigate the troubled waters of the Great Recession, extended unemployment benefits to keep millions out of poverty, and his administration was able to turn the economy around, albeit slowly, to a trend of relative growth, even if it remains sluggish.  His work continued the job of cleaning the Wall Street-produced economic dog poop, which began under former President George W. Bush.  In the hyper-partisan political environment he faced, those things were no small potatoes.

Unfortunately, Obama committed a major error; he surrounded himself with many advisors who were disciples of the Saul Alinsky philosophy of radicalism.  Though Obama’s term began with an inauguration speech reminiscent of the days of JFK’s Camelot, it quickly devolved into an administration steeped in arrogance, leftist ideology, and an impression of condescension towards everyday Americans.  Naming GE CEO Jeff Immelt, who openly campaigned for Obama during his 2008 campaign and dangerously blurred the lines between media objectivity and political activism, as a policy advisor was bad enough (GE had over a billion dollars in government contracts in their interest), but bringing in noted 60s radical Van Jones as another policy advisor further damaged his credibility.  Polarizing figure after polarizing figure visited the White House, and it only solidified the impression, however misguided, many conservatives shad of Obama being a left-wing globalist who didn’t care about mainstream Americans.  Obama’s attitude towards this appeared to be one of “I’m the boss, deal with it,” which only made things worse for him.    In fact, statements made by Obama about Republicans having to “eat your peas” over the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, and statements about being able to bypass Congressional authority through Executive Actions with his statement of “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” further cemented his image as an elitist insider who was completely out of touch with average Americans.

RELATED:  2014 article – Obama speaks about Executive Actions

Then there was the matter of Hillary Clinton being his Secretary of State.

When Hillary’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State, she was regarded as capable, respected and not a ladder-climbing political elitist and egomaniac.  Albright’s term may not have been the most stellar in American history, but she held a “first woman to…” distinction.  Hillary was not a “first anything,” which absolutely chafed her, and she was determined to show how tough she was as Secretary of State, but that rubbed many international leaders the wrong way, particularly Russia, which accepted Hillary as a matter of course, but took her about as seriously as the Soviet hockey team took the Americans in 1980.  The “reset button” moment between Russian’s Vladimir Putin and Clinton was regarded by many in Moscow as a joke and, for that reason, Hillary later appeared to have been hoodwinked.  Further, Clinton’s reactions and answers at Congressional hearings about the Benghazi attacks, and the subsequent email controversies involving her use of a private email server, further painted her as an out of touch elitist, which dogged her to the very end.

Where President Obama figured into this was a character flaw he suffered from; an extraordinarily awful sense of timing and proportionate response.  Though he may have had myriad good intentions, Obama picked the worst possible times to stay silent or, when he acted, did so with either far too much or far too little authority.  In the case of Clinton, Obama appeared to be protecting a fellow Democrat and heir-apparent to the Oval Office in his lack of action while, it the cases of police shootings in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, he appeared too aggressive towards reigning in rogue officers and departments.  When riots hit those and other cities, and later, a rash of murders of police officers hit the nation, his responses (or, in some cases, lack thereof) created an impression, justified or not, of a President enabling a culture of vengeance for what African Americans, and other minorities, suffered over the years.  Despite the historical facts of race relations in America,  Attorney General Eric Holder’s approach, which was portrayed as and, in some ways was, indeed, activist, did little to help Clinton’s campaign. In fact, it is possible that Obama’s own stubborn loyalty to the activists within his cabinet gave Americans the impression he was blinded to, or simply ignored, the greater issue; that his responsibility to maintain calm and the rule of law as President outweighed his personal desire to seek justice for those who had been oppressed and targeted.  Worse still, Obama’s own staff displayed a historic ineptitude with the media.  A President who had the opportunity to bridge the racial and economic divides between Americans instead embraced an open policy of activism and radical transformation.  In short, rather than taking a moderate approach, President Obama went for too much, too fast, too soon.

This did more than just empower Trump supporters, it galvanized them as never thought possible.  Those whom embraced Trump’s bombastic and oft-bigoted rhetoric – did so because of a feeling of his being able to relate to them. Feelings of anger and blind rage over being abandoned by their own country transformed into action, and it led to a movement whose goal was singular in approach – strike back at, and destroy, anything which even carried a stench of political correctness.

The pendulum had begun to swing from one extreme to another.

Now for a dose of uncomfortable reality:  Trump pulled off the greatest marketing ploy since Davey Crockett, packaging himself as a larger-than-life, all-American business hero who could pull the nation out of what supporters felt was a cesspool of moral relativism, liberal softness, and political correctness, and back to the “good ol’ days,” reminiscent of a time when everyone “got their hands dirty” and “knew their place.”  It also, sadly, unified and motivated hate groups and bigots who believed a Trump victory would give them license to act out in their interests and “take back America.”  Hillary’s campaign  approach, which flip-flopped between elitist stoicism and firebrand speeches, some of which sounded more like shrill temper tantrums than cohesive calls to actions, gave Trump an easy target.  Knowing it was in its twilight days, Obama’s own administration seemed to have checked out as much as the President, leading to wise decisions, such as re-investigations of Clinton’s activities while running the State Department, being made at ridiculously bad times for the Democratic nominee.

Clinton’s loss may have also illustrated a cruel irony; that being her defeat was, at least in small part, the unintended consequence of an administration which was in the most out-of-sight, out-of-mind mode anyone had seen since the final days of the Nixon regime.  Had Obama’s cabinet and Hillary’s campaign displayed more tactical wisdom and taken Trump more seriously in the early going that it did, it is very likely Trump might not have even locked down the GOP nomination.  Of course, sadly, hindsight is always 20/20.

It is said it takes at least a generation to even begin a fair assessment of an American President.  Jimmy Carter is regarded as one of the worst, but better than James Buchanan (sorry, if you allowed the nation to fracture into civil war, you will always be at the bottom) and Nixon (you can’t overcome resigning in lieu of impeachment).  Ronald Reagan is listed as among the best, but Abraham Lincoln, FDR and George Washington will always beat him (you can’t beat presidents who held the nation together in its first days, a civil war, or a global conflict against fascism.)  So where will Obama likely end up?  The smart money says somewhere in the upper middle; after Reagan, Ike and Jefferson but well ahead of Clinton, Bush “43”, and Wilson.  He was not the best by a longshot, but far from the worst.  Call him a divider if you will, but so was Hoover, LBJ, Jackson and Nixon.  You can also call him a radical, but so was FDR, Jefferson, and Lincoln in their ways.  What’s required is objectivity and perspective, and that will not be easily achieved for at least a generation.  In the meantime, Obama and Clinton both need to take a long, hard look in their mirrors and ask themselves the classic JFK question.

Rather than what the country did for (or against) them, but what did they truly do for their country.

My greatest fears for America realized, my greatest hope still possible

This is what I’ve feared ever since I left college in 1997.

We’ve reached a crescendo of anger and partisanship in our nation.  Those who we once believed were our best and brightest, offices which we once looked to for inspiration and hope, are now becoming synonymous with scandal and mistrust.  We have a media which is so steeped in ideology on both sides, common sense has vanished.  The notion of an America where anyone can become a success with hard work, a little luck, and some smarts is beyond endangered.  It’s been eviscerated.

Everyone is angry at everyone.  Family and friends are no longer speaking to each other, separated by ideology, preconceived notions, income disparity and occupation.  Ours was a nation once admired for its ability to take the best features of any culture, any religion, and race, and make it our own.  The ability to merge, to meld it all together into one made us the envy of the world.  Today, we have allowed those who wish to do us harm to claim the ultimate victory.  We’ve allowed them to drive us apart.

Worse still, we have allowed others to profit from our divisions.  We have embraced them and entrepreneurs and innovators instead of what they really are:  unpatriotic predators.

We are better than this.  We don’t need tolerance or safe zones now.  We don’t need gun control or fear mongering or opportunistic politicians.  We don’t need platitudes, slogans, investigations, accusations or organizations.  We don’t need moguls taking advantage of situations to enrich themselves.  What is needed is what we fear the most, the hardest possible thing we could ever do as a people.

We need to wake up and accept that fact we cannot live In the past anymore.

Progress happens.  Forward movement is part of life.  Change is reality.  Regression is what backwards societies such as North Korea and Iran have done.  It’s what ISIS wants. Regression, for a nation such as ours, is death.  The question for us is why we resist change so fervently.  Why are some changes so embraced, while some are so repellent, and the only thing I could think of was an analogy I once offered a longtime friend.  This man, who is an avid tea connoisseur, was asked a practical question; if your doctor told you that tea is lethal for you and that you must stop drinking it now and never touch it again, could you handle it?  He admitted it was a very disturbing idea. 

This is where we are now.  We are a people facing tough choices we don’t want to make because it upsets our lifestyles, our narratives, or our worldview.

We’ve gone from a society of reasonable people to a society of folks who have been told what they must do or can’t do.  We have a President who once told Americans we had to “eat our peas,” like a grouchy father scolding oppositional children.  We have a slew of pundits on talk radio accusing the party in power of everything short of killing puppies.  Whether it is true or not is irrelevant – the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” is gone.  We have become a society governed by our passions, those passions fomented by those co-opting the message of well-meaning, passionate citizens, and twisting them to fit a very profitable narrative.  Rather than listen to the better angels of our nature, we are now embracing our greatest demons, both past and present.

Our Founders were skeptical of the People governing directly, and I can see why.  We are no longer a nation of individuals who have the greater good at heart.  Ours is no longer a nation which asks what we can do for our country, as President Kennedy once called upon every American to do.  Nor is it the nation which once saw morning dawning again, and President Reagan once declared.  We aren’t even a nation which only has to fear fear itself as FDR once declared our only enemy to be.  We are beyond a nation by the people, for the people, and we have allowed ourselves to become too involved in foreign entanglements.  We are no longer a nation of laws, but of men and women.  Ours is a people captivated by cults of personality, enthralled by fantasy, obsessed with scandal, and unable to move forward out of a desire for vengeance and bloodlust.  We no longer forgive; we retaliate. We are near nihilists, but accept everything told by so-called “leaders” as gospel.

We can come back, if we want.  We can focus on the good in our nation, if we would stop looking at each other with suspicion.  We can end the hatred if we stop wondering how we can “get over” on each other.  We can rebuild if we start focusing on rolling up our sleeves and working on repairs.  We can stop the insanity if we realize that our greatest strength is the very thing which many regard as our greatest weakness – our differences, our seeming inability to agree.  If our nation was to collectively awaken from its slumber and see just how badly we are being played for fools by both sides of the political aisle, the consequences would be as an earthquake destroying a major city.  Anyone who wonders the veracity of this assessment need simply read this quote…

“A military man can scarcely pride himself on having ‘smitten a sleeping enemy’; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack.”

That quote was not by any American, but by Admiral Yamamoto of Japan in 1942 as the war in the Pacific intensified.  Three years later, Japan would lay in ruins, and America would have displayed what the collective will of a truly free people, properly directed, can do.

My hope is that my fear is only short-lived.

Political disclaimers and warning labels – handle with care, we mean it!

We interrupt this coffee sipping moment to review the current election cycle’s situation.

(choking…catching our breath)

Made ya look!

Okay, that’s better!  That’s what you get when you read headlines about Donald Trump’s taxes, the New York Times actually admitting it was wrong about Hillary Clinton (yes, that’s what caused the choking fit because that meant the Earth really is to crash into the Sun) and how Florida State lost to North Carolina this past week.  All these should have come with warning labels of some sort, and that brings along a thought which has been rattling around in the crawlspace of my head for the past few days.

Politicians and political parties are so quick to demand regulations and disclaimers on things, why can’t they themselves have disclaimers?  A warning label about carbon emissions, or toxic words, or waste product spewing from the mouth?  The old joke about politicians wearing sponsor logos like race car drivers do is still not too far from the truth but let’s take it a step further and examine some prominent politicians, parties, and candidates for a moment and apply the appropriate disclaimer or warning label to them.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY DISCLAIMER:  The candidate presented does not reflect the views of the electorate of the party itself.  The candidate could exhibit systems of fatigue and stress during the campaign, some of them disturbing such as deleted emails, missing staffers, coughing, sneezing, wheezing, laughing and sleeping with her husband.

REPUBLICAN PARTY DISCLAIMER:  The candidate presented does reflect the views of the party itself, but in no way is reflective of the grass roots background of our voters.  The candidate may also exhibit symptoms of campaign stress, such as above-average obnoxious behavior, bombast, and boisterous.  The candidate is also known to repeat himself frequently; patience is advised.

HILLARY CLINTON WARNING LABEL:  Prone to looking like an icicle on stage, semi-psychotic off stage, and is prone to violent outbursts when the words “Benghazi,” “Emails,” and “Monica” are mentioned.

DONALD TRUMP WARNING LABEL:  Prone to using words such as “great,” “amazing,” and “smart” excessively.  Possesses an inflated sense of his own importance.  May avoid paying taxes.

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ WARNING LABEL:  Contents past their expiration date.  Please replace with new version as soon as possible and upgrade internal data to reflect accurate reporting and remove desire to interfere with results.

TED CRUZ WARNING LABEL:  Contents prone to shifting position.  Handle with care.

MITCH McCONNELL LABEL:  Contents may not be as advertised on screen.  Buyer beware.

BARACK OBAMA WARNING LABEL:  Contents under extreme pressure.  May or not perform as expected.

SARAH PALIN WARNING LABEL:  Please lock away when not in use.  Keep in a cool dry place away from trees, bears, and snowmachine operators.  Store away from firearms.

CHRIS MATTHEWS WARNING LABEL:  Prone to underperformance.  Manage your expectations.

MIKE PENCE WARNING LABEL:  Read label carefully.  New model, still in development.

TIM KAINE WARNING LABEL:  Read label carefully.  Model incomplete, despite being available for use for many years.

JOE BIDEN WARNING LABEL:  Unstable contents.  Do not expose to sunlight.

BILL CLINTON WARNING LABEL:  Keep away from women.  Prone to misuse.

AL SHARPTON WARNING LABEL:  Do not use while near a camera.  Prone to excessive limelight absorption.

RUSH LIMBAUGH WARNING LABEL:  Contains high concentrations of bombast and hyperbole.  Use with a grain of salt.

MY WARNING LABEL:  May spout off at the mouth.  Prone to frequent sarcasm and use of inappropriate humor.  Neither conservative or liberal.


Characters and their campaign slogans

The Presidential campaign is in its final months, and there are joke shirts and memes everywhere.  It would remiss of us to ignore this prime opportunity to win the laugh vote, so here are the campaign slogans of some lesser known TV, movie and book characters:

Smokey from “Friday”:  We gonna win, and you know this, man!

Sonny Crockette:  Making Members Only jackets great again.

George Jetson:  Stop this crazy campaign.

Tim “Tool Man” Taylor:  America needs more power!

Montgomery Burns:  Yes, vote for me, fools!  Excellent!

Captain John Sheridan:  Nuke em!

Debra Barone:  Vote for me, idiot!

Taylor Swift:  I’m America’s Wildest Dream

Kylo Ren:  More Force, Less emo

Spock:  Making causality great again


Motley Crue:  We’ll rock America all night long.

Deadpool:  Eff the election.  Vote for Chimichangas!

What if North Korea handled Trump’s press releases?

We now return to our regularly schedule humor, already in progress.

Republican presidential candidate Trump gestures and declares "You're fired!" at a rally in Manchester
You know he’s about to drop an F bomb…you just KNOW it!

Everyone knows that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are now the presumed “Final Two” on the GOP end of the 2016 Presidential Campaign.  The New York billionaire and hairpiece extraordinaire has made verbal gaffe after verbal gaffe, and has inspired his followers to such a fervor that acts of violence appears to be committed in his name.  Still, it could be worse.

I have taken the liberty of posing the craziest “what if” scenario possible – what if the Trump campaign contracted the writing of their press releases to the Korea Central News Agency, the government press apparatus of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un (North Korean for “Fatboy Slim” – you better Praise Him Like You Do!).  With that in mind, and having read many of the North Korea government’s press releases, I believe I can now approximate a press release using “North Korean-style” journalistic and public relations techniques.


March 30, 2016


NEW YORK – Americans should take heed that their most powerful option for lasting peace through ultimate truth and attractiveness has begun to attack his enemies in a manner which will leave them listless and begging for extinguishing of their souls.  Eternal Eminence and Creator of True Wealth Donald Trump emerged to greet his followers today at a rally in New York.

According to Mr. Trump’s campaign, the Creator of True Wealth is sound in his beliefs, and is assured that his positions are based in both truth and the highest divine mandates.  Mr. Trump himself is reported to be in excellent health, superior strength, and agility akin to the most graceful animals who can run like the majestic gazelle.  Mr. Trump’s hair is reported to be in docile spirits and obeying his every command, as any legitimate appendage should to its master.

There are few experiences more exhilarating than witnessing the raw magnetism and power of Mr. Trump in action at his campaign rallies.  His supporters are devoted followers of our charismatic leader, whose victory is assured despite the vicious attacks by his enemies.  These individuals shall be dealt with in an appropriate, decisive, and most unpleasant manner once His Eminence has been elected as the President.  Mr. Trump has expressed a confidence in his campaign, his followers and the people of the nation that they shall recognize his greatness, his eminent manhood, and his charismatic charm, which has proven to be both divinely granted and inspired.

His Eminence assures us that he is a man of peace, and will work diligently to rid America of unbelievers, traitors, and undesirables.  His raw power is such that a simple look into his eyes will convince wrongdoers to cure the errors of their ways, traitors to end their own lives, and unbelievers to look to the heavens for the necessary inspiration to follow Mr. Trump to the vision he has bared for the nation.

Mr. Trump will continue his campaign up until the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, where it is expected he will be easily named the nominee by unanimous vote.  Should that not happen, he is prepared to deploy all available options, including the decimated of his enemies and the entire City of Cleveland, though to decimate the city would be profound waste of ammunition.

We wish His Excellency an expedient nomination and election so we may begin the process of securing peace and harmony through appropriate application of diplomacy and force, as well the use of his mighty hair to cow opponents into submission.

Bonus points to anyone who got that Fatboy Slim reference, by the way.

A genuine concern over this upcoming election

Political rants are something i avoid like the plague because they rarely ever solve anything.  This time, however, i feel a need to make like the mythical Cassandra and cry a warning to my fellow Americans about things which concern me.  Many I know will claim I am a fool for saying this, while others will wonder why i care or bother.  This is not done out of a desire for attention, but a call to serve in the best way i know how, by reading the writing on the wall of the world.

What I write here is merely what I sense, and what I sense is our nation is at a tipping point.  This election is the climax, the nexus, of that.  Who we choose from the choices offered will decide our nation’s fate.  If we choose wisely, history will judge our nation as visionary.  If we choose poorly, there will be little of a nation left for history to judge at all.

This is not to sound alarmist.  We are a nation im desperate need of healing.  We have grown angry because of our refusal to acknowledge our errors, and because many of us want to use those errors to become enriched in an ill-gotten manner.  What is done, is done.  Undoing the past is impossible, all we can do is learn from it.  Yes, our past is one of conquest and bondage, wars of ethnic and economic superiority, and we continue to fight those wars today, only under the guise of religion and political ideology.  We are so focused on defense we allow ourselves to become the aggressor.  “Kill them before they kill us.”  That is the mantra of justification.

I’m no peacenik.  I understand war is necessary.  I also understand there will be another war, and this time the biggest war ever.  The “War on Terror” is a mirage, a well-intended action which morphed into a distraction.  If our leaders had the will to end terrorism, we would have seen little more than sporadic incidents.  The next major war we fight will likely be decided on our shores, and no longer will our men and women go off to die in a foreign land.  They will be asked to die here.  The concern is simple.

Our next President will decide if our nation lives or dies.  If that person finishes the war, we live.  However, if that person starts the war, we don’t.  Americas destiny is not aggression,  no matter how much of it she committed in the past.  Her destiny is healing and renewal.  Whether we allow her to meet that destiny depends on if we choose from two sides of an angry coin, or step aside and choose neither.   Yes, it can be done.

When i know more on that, you’ll  know.