A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR UNITY '08: MY ADDRESS TO AMERICA
My fellow Americans,
We do have our differences with one another. Never is this truth more self-evident than in an election season, when fundamentally divergent first principles have the "reds" and "blues" at each other's throats. The strife inherent in such a cultural (if not actually physical) civil war can have a profoundly disruptive effect on a sensitive person's spirit.
That said, dear citizens, I must relate that I have great news! Having spent a good deal of time examining the roots of our societal conflict, I have reached a surprising and happy conclusion: We are not as different as we may think. Our nation need not divide into petty sectionalism or tear itself apart over divisive political and social issues any more. Rejoice, fellow Americans! Our seeming divide is nothing but an illusion. On one core matter, we are in fact completely in agreement.
Let it be said, nay shouted, loud and clear, and with pride. We are not Republicans or Democrats, left-wing or right-wing, Northern or Southern, black, white, brown, or yellow. We are Americans! Let us cease our silly, destructive, partisan rhetoric, and come together as one. Let us admit our most crucial commonality.
The fact is, we are all heartily in favor of murdering children.
We only disagree on which children ought to be murdered, and when. We agree on the principle, and differ only on the particulars.
Democrats, the so-called blue-staters, prefer child-murder to be carried out by abortionists, while Republicans, the red state faction, have a slightly different idea: they want children not to be aborted, but rather bombed and/or shot.
Really, when you look at it closely, are these two stances all that different? The red-staters are down on the blue-staters for condoning, even encouraging abortion, and wanting it in all cases to remain "legal and safe." Yet red-staters are adamantly in favor of "getting tough" in wartime. Their spiritual ancestors, whom they still revere for their "moral clarity," cheered when Air Force pilots reduced Axis cities to rubble during World War II, and in so doing murdered and mangled untold thousands of children, including many still in their mothers' wombs.
Today, red state America yearns for a return to an age when people didn't wring their hands over civilian deaths at the hands of the U.S. military, but instead simply understood that "war is hell," and you do what you have to do to prevail. Or as one red stater-- speaking for many others-- recently wrote, "A carpetbombed Nazi is better than an un-carpetbombed Nazi." (One could just as easily substitute "Jap," "gook," "commie,""jihadi," "raghead," Baathist," or whatever other term of derision is appropriate for the given war.)
Meantime, the "peacenik" blue state faction gets up in arms, as it were, about the red-stater's callous indifference towards enemy civilian casualties, without realizing how closely aligned this view is in fact with his own. Perhaps it would be helpful for him, if the next time he sees a picture of a dead Iraqi child on the internet, he pictures in its place the bloodied corpse of an aborted baby. After making this mental substitution, I'm hopeful that the blue-stater can put aside his petty differences with the red stater (that is to say, over which child it's okay to destroy and which it's a travesty to murder), and see the glorious commonality that makes them both such great Americans.
The red-stater, when forced to view an image that he doesn't like, such as bodies of Iraqi children killed by U.S. bombs or bullets, becomes angry-- not at the fact that the children were murdered (since he knows that war is hell and you do what you have to do in order to win), but at the people who took the picture, and what he thinks such an image will do to affect the war effort and the morale of the soldiers. The blue-stater, when forced to see the little body of a child slaughtered by an abortionist, has a strikingly similar response. The picture doesn't make him ponder the brutality and inhumanity of abortion; rather, he is angered that someone would be so "tacky" as to put such an image on display, when the real issue should be "reproductive rights" and "a woman's right to choose," and so forth.
Do you not see, red- and blue-state American, just how similar you truly are? Can we all get along? Does it really matter that one of our Presidential candidates makes jokes about bombing a foreign country and massacring its civilians, while the other has never met an infanticide he didn't like and didn't want funded with taxpayer dollars? Look at one another, "red" and "blue" Americans, and you will see a mirror image of yourself, only with a different complexion. Judge not by the color of the person's state, but by the content of that state's character.
To America!
God bless us, every one!
Thank you, and good night.
We do have our differences with one another. Never is this truth more self-evident than in an election season, when fundamentally divergent first principles have the "reds" and "blues" at each other's throats. The strife inherent in such a cultural (if not actually physical) civil war can have a profoundly disruptive effect on a sensitive person's spirit.
That said, dear citizens, I must relate that I have great news! Having spent a good deal of time examining the roots of our societal conflict, I have reached a surprising and happy conclusion: We are not as different as we may think. Our nation need not divide into petty sectionalism or tear itself apart over divisive political and social issues any more. Rejoice, fellow Americans! Our seeming divide is nothing but an illusion. On one core matter, we are in fact completely in agreement.
Let it be said, nay shouted, loud and clear, and with pride. We are not Republicans or Democrats, left-wing or right-wing, Northern or Southern, black, white, brown, or yellow. We are Americans! Let us cease our silly, destructive, partisan rhetoric, and come together as one. Let us admit our most crucial commonality.
The fact is, we are all heartily in favor of murdering children.
We only disagree on which children ought to be murdered, and when. We agree on the principle, and differ only on the particulars.
Democrats, the so-called blue-staters, prefer child-murder to be carried out by abortionists, while Republicans, the red state faction, have a slightly different idea: they want children not to be aborted, but rather bombed and/or shot.
Really, when you look at it closely, are these two stances all that different? The red-staters are down on the blue-staters for condoning, even encouraging abortion, and wanting it in all cases to remain "legal and safe." Yet red-staters are adamantly in favor of "getting tough" in wartime. Their spiritual ancestors, whom they still revere for their "moral clarity," cheered when Air Force pilots reduced Axis cities to rubble during World War II, and in so doing murdered and mangled untold thousands of children, including many still in their mothers' wombs.
Today, red state America yearns for a return to an age when people didn't wring their hands over civilian deaths at the hands of the U.S. military, but instead simply understood that "war is hell," and you do what you have to do to prevail. Or as one red stater-- speaking for many others-- recently wrote, "A carpetbombed Nazi is better than an un-carpetbombed Nazi." (One could just as easily substitute "Jap," "gook," "commie,""jihadi," "raghead," Baathist," or whatever other term of derision is appropriate for the given war.)
Meantime, the "peacenik" blue state faction gets up in arms, as it were, about the red-stater's callous indifference towards enemy civilian casualties, without realizing how closely aligned this view is in fact with his own. Perhaps it would be helpful for him, if the next time he sees a picture of a dead Iraqi child on the internet, he pictures in its place the bloodied corpse of an aborted baby. After making this mental substitution, I'm hopeful that the blue-stater can put aside his petty differences with the red stater (that is to say, over which child it's okay to destroy and which it's a travesty to murder), and see the glorious commonality that makes them both such great Americans.
The red-stater, when forced to view an image that he doesn't like, such as bodies of Iraqi children killed by U.S. bombs or bullets, becomes angry-- not at the fact that the children were murdered (since he knows that war is hell and you do what you have to do in order to win), but at the people who took the picture, and what he thinks such an image will do to affect the war effort and the morale of the soldiers. The blue-stater, when forced to see the little body of a child slaughtered by an abortionist, has a strikingly similar response. The picture doesn't make him ponder the brutality and inhumanity of abortion; rather, he is angered that someone would be so "tacky" as to put such an image on display, when the real issue should be "reproductive rights" and "a woman's right to choose," and so forth.
Do you not see, red- and blue-state American, just how similar you truly are? Can we all get along? Does it really matter that one of our Presidential candidates makes jokes about bombing a foreign country and massacring its civilians, while the other has never met an infanticide he didn't like and didn't want funded with taxpayer dollars? Look at one another, "red" and "blue" Americans, and you will see a mirror image of yourself, only with a different complexion. Judge not by the color of the person's state, but by the content of that state's character.
To America!
God bless us, every one!
Thank you, and good night.
posted by Andy Nowicki at 10:31 AM
5 comments
