Now comes word that conservatives do not want President Barack Hussein Obama to speak to our public school children. These patriotic Americans, these true-blue freedom fighters, fear that the President will not encourage the students to work hard, stay in school, and strive to be better citizens. Instead they say that BO will seize this opportunity to warp young and supple minds, that he will indoctrinate them with socialist or, worse yet, communist concepts. We all know there is a difference– a big, big difference.
Hey, let’s admit it. Let’s not mince words. With such inflammatory talk the time has come for a nice, amicable parting of the ways. It just isn’t working. The great experiment of the Founding Fathers is kaput, down the toilet, into the cesspool.
Sure it was fun while it lasted. Well, maybe not all the time. The Revolutionary War was a long, protracted affair, right up with Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Civil War was not exactly a time of great joy and jubilation. Nor was the Spanish Flu of 1919. Nor the two World Wars with the Great Depression sandwiched in between.
But thankfully those days are to the rear. That was when Americans were one people, when we truly loved and cared for one another. Who today wants to relive all that strife, all that bloodletting, all that gore? Clearly what’s needed is cultural surgery, a societal divorce. And as in all divorces there is but one question: how best to divide the spoils– who goes where and who gets what?
I’m not one for playing God. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I do however have a vision, a vague outline of how this divorce can be accomplished, how conservatives can go in one direction and liberals the other in relative peace and tranquility. Remember: this is far from a definitive vision or a perfect plan. Still we must begin somewhere.
Geography is the key. We must first look at the map and make some fundamental decisions on where the two sides should reside. All eastern and most western cities I have dubbed “the Untouchables.” They are not only crammed with liberals but infested with America’s biggest losers: the poor and the downtrodden. There is no way we are going to uproot these folks without societal catechism, without carnage on a massive scale. So this then is the jumping off spot: conservatives, by and large, will take the initiative and abandon the major metropolitan areas for the wide-open spaces.
What then? Well, at first glance it would appear that conservatives should populate the Mid-West or what Joel Garreau calls “The Breadbasket” in his seminal work The Nine Nations of North America. But there’s a problem– a big, big problem. The Breadbasket is just what Garreau says it is: the Breadbasket. As such, it not only feeds the United States but a huge hunk of the world. What liberal would give that up? What liberal would freely fork over the source of his food to a conservative, to a culture-war combatant bound and determined to destroy him?
So it looks like we’re stuck, doesn’t it? It looks like we will have to continue to coexist in what Lincoln called “a house divided”– that we will have to hunker down and get used to spewing bile in one another’s faces. Maybe. But maybe not. Let’s take another look at the map. Let’s ask ourselves some fundamental questions. Where, besides Israel, would conservatives be happiest? In what states could they insulate themselves from their dreaded foes? Where could they be free from the insufferable poor? Where could they practice their odd blend of capitalism and Elmer-Gantry Christianity without the intrusion of satanic liberal thought–without evolution, string theory, and the Big Bang?
Once these questions are broached the heavens part, the haze lifts, the fog dissipates, and two gargantuan states come into view: Texas and Alaska.
Yes, yes, I know. Texas and Alaska do no share a common border. How then can they be made into one country? But wait. Isn’t that old school? With our ubiquitous cell phones, laptops, and lightning-fast Internet access, a common border becomes a bit quaint, nothing but a trifle. Still are Texas and Alaska compatible? More to the point, are the two states large enough and ideologically compatible to absorb a mass influx of millions upon millions of crazed conservatives? Happily the answer to that is a resounding “Yes!”
Let’s first examine the great state of Texas. I say “great state” for that is what Texans have called the Lone Star State for decades. Indeed they have not stopped there. Even after JFK was gunned down in the streets of Dallas, Texans crowed ad infinitum, “Don’t mess with Texas.” More recently Governor Rick Perry has taken it a step farther and advocated outright secession. I don’t know about you but I’m not one to coerce. I’m willing to give the Guv the benefit of the doubt. I’m willing to say, “Adios, Texas.”
Besides bringing joy to the hearts and minds of myriad conservatives, a sovereign and separate Texas would quickly put to rest the thorny issue of illegal aliens crossing the Rio Grande. Exactly how Texan conservatives will accomplish this feat, I do not know. But this I do know: they will. After all, they don’t wear ten-gallon-hats down there for nothing.
Alaska too has recently evinced Texan-size discontent. Blessed with stupendous natural resources and with Queen Sarah and her quirky family a constant source of inspiration and entertainment, Alaska is the perfect place for young, boom-boom conservatives and their families. Sadly, these conservatives age and when they do Alaska, with its permafrost winters, ceases to be the land of the midnight sun and the aurora borealis. Instead it is transformed into the land of the slip and the slide, a place from which any octogenarian would flee were a sanctuary available.
That’s where Texas comes in. Ancient Alaskans would retire there, just as liberals retire to Florida. They could visit the Alamo, stroll the broad streets of Dealey Plaza, and hone their telescopic rifle skills unimpeded on the banks of the Rio Grande. Theirs would truly be “the Golden Years.”
But what if the twin states of Texas and Alaska were not up to the task, what if the resources of these majestic states, though vast, could not accommodate the hordes of conservatives that migrate there? What then? Do we have a safety valve, a third state, to call upon? I believe so. Some call it the home of the NRA. Others refer to it as “the Big Sky Country.” Still others call it the womb of the Unabomber.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Montana!
Sure Montana pales beside the glitz of Texas and the grandeur of Alaska. And, yes, the state-count is still ridiculously lopsided: liberals forty-seven, conservatives a mere three. But that’s sans bombast. And we can’t forget bombast. Once the bombast of Talk Radio is figured in, the equation balances.
Even-steven, I would say.
Wouldn’t you?
No comments:
Post a Comment