It's been such a busy month at my regular job that I haven't had a chance to really do anything. I just don't understand where the time goes.
But I have had time to read the opinions of others. Some are very thought-provoking and knowledgable. Some address important national issues, and some are only of local interest. Since this is political season, and an election year, the liberal rationalizing and fear-mongering is in an especially high gear. Arkansas' only state-wide newspaper is especially rich in comedic gold.
I noticed that whenever I came across a little blurb of idiocy, I would start talking to the newspaper in answer. Not to toot my own horn, but I figured my answers were a lot smarter and more cogent than what I was replying to. That's quite a feat, I think, considering that the best way to write is to think all the way through what you want to say, and say it in the most short and concise way possible. Thus, my spontaneous and off-the-cuff remarks were smarter and more deeply thought out than was somebody's letter who was supposed to be completely thought out before being printed.
Which leads me to a new feature that I've entitled...
Smart Answers To Dumb Questions (or Statements)
Don't get the wrong idea that liberal idiocy is only contained to Arkansas. I'm sure that a brief perusal of your own local newspaper could come up with even more liberal idiocy (which, by the way, is redundant) than what I've gathered here. I'm sure using the New York Times or Los Angeles Times or Atlanta Journal-Constitution or another newspaper would net us some even daffier material. I'm using these because they are local to me, and I'm able to reproduce these letters for you to read before I comment on them.
I'm drawing mostly from the letters to the editor page because of two reasons. The first is that, in accordance with the newspaper's policy, each letter printed must be under 250 words. Since each letter must adhere to that policy, each letter is therefore pretty short.
The second reason is that because of this shortness, the writer must make his point as totally as possible in as few words possible. Thus, a letter-writer must choose each word carefully and make sure that it fits coherently into their argument.
Now, since the introduction is longer than any letters I put in here, I'll get to the fun.
This first one is from Gary McLehaney of Benton, Arkansas. He writes:
Evolution of thought
In the Voices section recently, a writer stated that evolution isn’t real and that mutations never positively alter genomes.
However, look at how the altered wolf’s genome has created every dog from the flat-faced bulldog to the teacup Chihuahua. Going from a cave dog to a house dog is positive evolution, in my opinion.
Pictures from the past prove that people are positively evolving. I think Mona Lisa was so homely and dowdy compared to modern women.
Of course, the evolution of the human mind helped speed up and improve the evolution of things that used to take thousands of years if left to evolve on their own. And phooey to the thin-headed opponents of evolution who want us to devolve back to the monkeys that got left behind by trying to cling to the old ways.
Even ideology evolves-20 years from now, when someone protests against gay marriage, then people will say that the Old Testament isn’t followed anymore. Nowadays that is said about women cutting their hair and having sex before marriage, which were dire sins a hundred years ago.
The ways of life are going to move on and evolve like everything else does-except for primitive-minded people.
How tragic that we can’t invent a time machine to send these people back to the Bible days where they can be as primitively ignorant as they wish.
So Gary's asserts that evolution is true because a canine has evolved into... another canine.
And don't you think it's rather speciest to compare the "thin-headed opponents" (way to raise the civility bar, Gary) to monkeys?
The next one we have is from Julia Randle of Jacksonville, Arkansas. Julia is always good for a laugh, and she doesn't disappoint this time around.
Mean, hateful words
Ron Miller of Jonesboro seems to want a good ol’ Southern pat on his back for saying President Barack Obama ate dog meat around the campfire in Indonesia. I can tell that Ron likely has not traveled outside Arkansas or served in the military. My husband served two tours in South Korea and my brother served two tours in Vietnam. Both saw people in those countries eating dog meat.
Before coming to Arkansas, I did not know people ate raccoons. I would swear raccoons are cousins of the dog. There are a lot of animals I do not eat, such as raccoon, possum, deer, alligator, rabbit, goat, squirrel or the rest of the animals walking in the woods. Sea creatures like lobster, crab, shrimp and please, no catfish or fried foods. There are many things I refuse to touch, like coffee, alcohol of any kind, and I hate cigarettes.
When you say nasty things about people, God hears you. You will get yours before you leave this sinful place.
Both President Obama and I were raised by our mothers and grandmothers. It is the best teaching a person could want. President Obama would never say anything bad about Ron. He was not raised in a mean, hateful household.
Being raised in a Christian home is like having a million dollars.
The Bible says there is a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.
Oh, where to start with this?
Well, first, Mrs. Randle thinks that the whole flap doodle over Obama eating dog meat was about Obama eating dog meat. Although sickening, the problem isn't that Obama ate dog meat, but what the liberal sycophants in the media pursued as their story.
If you will remember, the Obama campaign served up the story that Mitt Romney had placed his dog in a dog carrier on top of the family vehicle and driven some distance with it like that. The media happily repeated the story, and started "analyzing" it, asking the heavy questions like, "What does this say about Mitt Romney's judgment?", and "What kind of person would do this to a poor, innocent animal?"
Wow, man, heavy.
So, one very smart person who had read Obama's mysterious autobiography recalled Obama's anecdote about his father making him eat different animals, and changed the narrative from what the Obama camp and the media had going to a reversal of the situation. The whole thing just backfired on the Democrats, all with a seemingly casual flicker of movement. And since it did that, nobody in the liberal media establishment has been pondering the deeper issues of this story. The questions of, "What does this say about Barack Obama's judgment?", and "What kind of person would do this to a poor, innocent animal?" have not been pursued.
Astonishing, I know.
Then Mrs. Randle states that calling people mean names will come back on you, and God will judge you harshly for doing so. Mrs. Randle also states that Obama was raised by his mother and grandmother. Two statements in which there is no disagreement. I can't agree with her conclusion that this is "the best teaching a person could want" -seems a bit androphobic, if you ask me- but everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
What made me spray my newspaper with my cool, refreshing beverage was the assertion that Obama would never say anything bad about the original letter writer. The fact that Obama has done so on numerous occasions before is indisputable and easily refuted.
Mrs. Randle also states that Obama was raised in a Christian home. Maybe, but his father and step-father also made him attend a madrassa and attend mosque in addition to going to church. So Obama wasn't raised in a 100% Christian home. So it looks like Obama's upbringing is only worth half a million dollars instead.
Well, this column has rambled on far longer than I intended for it to go, so I'm going to cut it off here. I do have plenty of other letters that I'm going to use. There's one in particular that I will feature in my next column that is just plain rich in comedic gold.
See you next time.