It doesn’t matter how good the chef’s offering was. If it leaves you choking, vomiting and fighting for your life, it’s safe to say that was a restaurant to which you should never return. Douse yourself in Pepto Bismol, and head for the sack. In the morning, you can write your quick, searing review on Yelp or Google and cross that place off your list of happy dining experiences.
Another week has passed; it’s been a stressful one, and Friday night is back. You’re not going to pass-up your regular standing date with your sweetheart, so you merely avoid last weekend’s horrific experience and try a different eatery for your dining adventure.
It, too, turns out to be a big disappointment. Meat too tough; potatoes burned at the edges; and a dessert that has a hint of that ready-for-the-dumpster fragrance. You pay the bill, leave a generous tip—since the waitress was just another innocent—and rise to leave. Suddenly, you’re facing a life-threatening experience.
Déjà vu! You’re wretching, covered with hives and having a difficult time breathing. This time, the paramedics have to be called, and you find yourself zipped away in an ambulance for a ride to the ER. One night on IVs—and a conservative $45,000 bill—and you’re good as new. But now you’re consumed by a new worry.
With yet another questionable eating establishment cut from your list, you’re sad and dismayed. This is a small town, and you may be facing a life without the joy of your ritual fine dining.
Our current election campaign is much the same, with each candidate offering a menu, neither of which is exactly what we want. Even those who have been fiercely loyal to their candidate have been having second thoughts—particularly about the real issues and where their man/woman stands.
The issues that seemed to clearly separate the two presidential candidates are being blurred by what appears to be a new ploy. Each is aware that there’s some real wisdom in the slogan, “If you can’t beat them, join them.”
We’ve seen some of this on both sides. Donald Trump was a firm believer in destroying the environment and continuing to flood the world with coal and oil. The Kamala Harris campaign noticed that there were plenty of numbskulls out there that figured raping the environment was fine, as long as it meant a better price at the pump and a lower electric bill to run the much-needed A/C.
So, though Harris had been solidly opposed to fracking, she’s now indicated she will not support its ban. A little bit of intelligent analysis—or, what can safely be called “rationalization”—and presto, Harris’s platform merges just a bit with the Republican throng.
It’s no secret that Trump has cultivated and conned the Evangelistic Christian community, by taking an unyielding past stand on the abortion issue. Understanding that he really needs the support of the general population of women, he’s doing some repackaging. He knows that women’s control over their own bodies is a big issue, and he’s embracing a broader view of the conflict between “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life.”
In-vitro fertilization has been a popular target of the born-again gang, but now he’s saying he’s had a revelation, that IVF is a great blessing. He’s gone even further, suggesting that he’ll pay the bill when you’re trying for quintuplets. Wow. That’s a change.
Or, how about Trump’s opposition to fully-electric cars—one of his pet peeves for the past few years. But, wait just a minute. Trump is now saying, “If that sucker, Musk, is stupid enough to give my campaign $45M a month, I guess I owe him: You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.”
But the biggest concern of all is that both candidates seem to be backing the murderous policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his continuing obliteration of the Palestinian people. Trump has become a devout Netanyahu worshiper, so there’s little hope that he gives a damn about the destruction of an entire country and the murder of 41,000 of its population.
Like many of Harris’s fans, I’ve hoped that she would have the balls to put her foot down on the continuing, uninterrupted flow of weapons to Israel, but maybe I was wrong. In the past few days, she’s been supportive of Biden’s moral failure, stating that the U.S. will continue, without pause, to furnish the weapons of destruction to the Israeli state. Of course, she’s framed it as an endorsement of Israel’s right to defend itself, but we know the past year has not been about Israel’s justifiable “defense.”
Down deep, I have a feeling that Harris is keeping her cards hidden and that she possesses a deep kindness and concern over the Palestinian genocide—on which she intends to act. But for now, in an effort to keep the support of the Jewish lobby, she’s backing the atrocities of Israel’s Zionist-backed government. If she’s elected, we will get to see if she actually has a moral core.
One thing is for sure, the margins between candidates are appearing more blurred, and what we’re seeing is kind of like the guy at the restaurant’s pop dispenser who adds a little bit of everything to his beverage. It’s the color of mud, and it’s hard to make sense of it.
That said, whomever wins the election must end Netanyahu’s reign of terror. He’s a war criminal—as determined by almost all of the major countries of the world—and there is no if, and, or but about it.
The author is a retired businessman, novelist, columnist and former Vietnam-era Army assistant public information officer. He resides in Riverton with his wife, Carol, and their adorable and ferocious dog Poppy.
