It's a good thing there are now so many Americans who have no use for science, because it's difficult to explain, scientifically, the full moon that has shone over this country's political landscape for the better part of the past year. Things are really crazy out there. And getting crazier every day. Some of us bleeding heart moonbatty types thought a lot of this would blow over a few months after the 2008 election, but the winds of hysteria and paranoia have only blown stronger with each passing day. I'll leave the ominous historical parallels and red flags to someone else; but, the tone being as polarized as it's been in 150 years or so, I can't help but lament the fact that so many stars of the GOP whom we might look to for wisdom and answers are no longer with us. I'd like to ask them some questions.
First, I'd like to ask Abraham Lincoln if he thinks the Civil War was about slavery or not, and, if not, what the heck was it about? And, by the way, does he believe that states have the right, constitutionally speaking, to secede from the union? Because I could swear that he mobilized 20 million northerners to settle those questions once and for all, but here they are, cropping up again, in 2010. I wonder if, when Lincoln mentioned binding up the nation's wounds in his Second Inaugural Address, he meant to bind those wounds so the South could rip them open again every year with a special commemoration of the Confederacy?
Next, I would query Dwight D. Eisenhower as to whether or not he regrets his ending of the Korean War? Was he worried when some Democrats and Republicans painted him as weak on communism, despite his record of service to the country? And, if he remembers that whole "military-industrial" complex warning he gave in his farewell address, does he feel we've dodged that bullet? Because there are those in 2010 who would have us remain perpetually at war, and call into question the patriotism and seriousness of purpose of those who seek to end it. Yet those same people, coincidentally, stand to profit handsomely from said eternal conflict. Weird, huh, Mr. President? Almost like you saw it coming.
Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.
And he really hated the Commies, right?
Finally, I really want to talk to Ronald Regan. Like a lot. Because he dreamed of a world without nuclear weapons, and he took important, bold steps toward achieving that goal. I won't quote him here, as his words have been oft recalled this week, but I really would like to know what he thinks of the nuclear arms reduction treaty signed by the President this past week. Does he think it a sign of strength or of weakness that the leader of the free world would make good on his commitment to reducing the number of (and thus existential threat posed by) these terrible weapons? I am so super interested in the answer to this question in particular, because there are a whole lotta folks out there who claim Obama is behaving irresponsibly and wants to strip the United States of her defenses (especially from a cyber attack... hmmm). Yet those same folksy folks ceaselessly invoke Reagan's name when talking about what type of leadership style they most admire. So, what gives, Mr. President? We here in 2010 are confused, and we'd like you to clear it up. Are nukes good or bad? And should we use them in case of a cyber attack? We'd like to know. Before November, if possible.