Advertisement

Civil War ruined political history for entire country

November 09, 2004|by TIM ROWLAND

After hearing about the 17th person complain about the election results and threaten a move to Canada, it occurred to me what the problem was: The Civil War got it wrong.

If the North ever develops a time machine, it might want to go back to 1864, where Gen. Grant would ride about as far south as Williamsport, dust off his hands, take a big slug of bourbon and say, "That's the name of that tune."

Then they'd tell the South, "son, you're on your own," move the capital to New York City and spend the rest of all time electing Massachusetts liberals as president.

Think how much angst that would have saved. Stupid Lincoln.

The Confederate states would basically be the South and much of the Louisiana Purchase, and the Previously United States would be a big upside-down "U," from California up around the Great Lakes and back down to the Mason-Dixon Line. The South would be one nation under God, while the North would be one nation under Gog. Of course, since there would be no Bibles in the North, no one would know from Gog and Magog, but that's beside the point.

Advertisement

The South would be run by preachers, the North would be run by lawyers. Gays would either run naked in the streets or be stoned, depending on which side of the border they resided. In the North they would jail anyone who owned a gun, in the South they would jail anyone who tried to open a Starbucks. Then everyone would be happy, right?

Well, not entirely, because there are pockets of conservatives in the North and pockets of liberals in the South, so we would have to create mini-nations and sub-nations and nations within nations within nations. This would be needed to be in compliance with that little-known clause in the Constitution that says, "The right for every American to Get His Own Way All Of The Time shall not be infringed."

For the record, I voted for Kerry, partly because I firmly believe that the G-8 nations have a duty in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund to pursue multilateral export reserve quotas for Third World nations - and partly because these new voting machines make it easy for your spouse to see who you're voting for and I was forced to complete my ballot with the point of a dagger leveled at my ribs.

I reckoned I could live with Kerry, but I could not live with someone who was liable to be poisoning my soup.

But I'm pretty philosophical about the indignity of backing a losing candidate. I figure the liberals had control of the country for four decades and the conservatives somehow survived. Now it's the conservatives' turn. It only seems fair. Although I am afraid I am going to have to insist that after the conservatives have their run, we libertarians should get a crack at it.

· Man, did the bloggers screw up big ... projecting a Kerry victory at 4 in the afternoon based on some tracking poll/time machine invented by some computer nerds in the basement of the science building.

This just exposes bloggers for what they are: small-minded, blind-to-the-facts, self-absorbed little snits with no connection to the real world, who sit in the dimly lit bedrooms of their parents' homes with their laptops eating dry Cocoa Puffs out of the box, typing up dispatches for no pay because they have no practical focus or ability to succeed at anything they do, stupid losers. By the way, you can see my new blog at www.herald-mail.com.

· The London Daily Mirror last week had a photo of George Bush and the headline: "D'oh! How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?" My question to Britain would be, "How can 60 million people think prime rib should be boiled?"

· This from the Washington Post: "The defeat of John Kerry has left Hillary Rodham Clinton as one of the most powerful elected officials in the national Democratic Party - as well as the top prospect for the presidential nomination in 2008, according to party officials and strategists.

"Many Democrats in and out of Washington are mentioning Mrs. Clinton, the junior senator from New York, as the leading contender for the party's nomination in 2008, citing her immense popularity among Democrats, her fund-raising prowess and her formidable political operation, which was employed, unsuccessfully, in the Kerry presidential bid."

Hillary vs. Pat Robertson & Co.? I couldn't get that lucky.

Tim Rowland is a Herald-Mail columnist.

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|