Something Olfactory Amiss in Denmark

 Another Constantine entry. This one isn't a story per se. It is political commentary. My father was often very angry back in the 80s and 90s about politics. He foresaw the catastrophe in which we find ourselves now, the dismantling of the United States, an imperfect, but the best in human terms, nation in the world in favor of the ultimate totalitarianism of socialism that morphs nearly always into Communism and lots of bloodshed. 

So this opinion piece (though opinion is now censored with great glee by the most progressive among us) was written like around the time of the campaigning for the 2000 election.  That's what, 20 or 21 years ago. I didn't always like how my father expressed his dissatisfaction. And even in this piece, I find a few things with which I disagree.  Alas, I now understand exactly why he did say what he did, as I find myself, long after his death 13 years ago, standing with the rest of the citizens of the nation, on the event horizon of apocalypse. 

SOMETHING OLFACTORY AMISS IN DENMARK

Scientists have discovered that both nostrils do not react identically.  My immediate question is how the one modifies the brain engrams to minimize an unpleasant odor, or conversely, enhances the pleasant.

I know how this is done politically.  Take the Democrat nasal aperture--metaphorically, of course. Now, as any observer of the national scene will admit, it is the one considered to be most identified with equalitarian justice.

Observe the unanimity of sensory observation when Bill and Hilary walk into the Rose Garden.  Ask any Democrat about the sudden zephyr that wafts across the land, and you will be told that it is the aroma of long stems, or American Beauties.

This is not something to be criticized in a climate where a presidential seat is the goal, or control of the Senate is the goal. Or, the control of the Senate is in the balance.  It is practical politics.

One would have thought that the Republicans would have learned this lesson in 1992.  They have not. Consider the antics of the six aspirants for the highest office.  Note the fact that candidate Forbes has aready invested a quarter of a million dollars on a single thirty-second advertisement to disparage the only viable candidate capable of ending an eight year tyranny of the proletariat--George Bush.

Now, I do not consider George Bush an ideal choice.  Nevertheless, choosing him is far more intelligent than another Bob Dole image, and a consequent inevitable defeat by a Clinton Clone, one similarly oriented to socialism, but without the Protean coloration of the master of smoke and mirrors.

Steve Forbes has that "lean and hungry look" of Cassius, a perennial candidate who loused up the previous election for the Republicans.  He did this with his intransigent ego and his flaunted inherited millions.  He is, futher, barely prettier than Bob Dole and perhaps not as rich as Donald Trump.  The Democrats have had a monopoly on pretty, as any political ingenue will testify.  It is far more potent than foreign policy knowledge about knowing the peregrinations of any mid-eastern Ali Baba.

Gary Bauer is somewhat medieval for our times, a one note Savanarola, without the brains to see that his campaign can only impede the conservative survival in a world that is still entranced with the promise of eternal governmental dispensation of good.  Moreover, abortion is here to stay.  It was here when the only solution was the knitting needly and it will be here even when a careless lady forgets to take the now legal morning after pill.

Now, Orrin Hatch is more palatable, though I think he has a greater talent for comedy than Presidential office.  I always felt he was a pseudo-conservative, especially when he rode the teeter board towards a policy of chastisement for our priapic President.  I wonder that he never used a few one-liners on the athletics in the dome.

He cannot win even the nomination process.  Wherefore does he try to injure the only viable candidate to a victorious Gore, or Bennett, depending on which promises more.  What, you may well ask? More anything, as long as it is somebody else's.

If it were possible to pick a candidate on the pure merit of what he says is Alan Keyes.  He espouses, in the purest oratory since Cicero, or Demosthenes, the stated principles of our constitutional promises, most of which have been abrogated. I like to think he believes what he says, but he is, after all, a politician in the luxurious postiion to say anything he wants.  He knows he cannot win so why not exploit the luxury? I would pay premium ticket prices for a national debate between Alan Keyes and Donna Brazile.

Who is Donna Brazile? Why she is running the campaign for that great egalitarian, Al Gore.  She cannot be chastised, certainly not by the media, for any form of racism. But she considers that African-Americans like Keyes and Watts are "Uncle Toms" as she describes them in her fashionable innovative rascist oratory. 

Does Donna apply this characterization to Hilary and her projected meeting with Al Sharpton? Or will Al smear the princess with the dung he used befor on a guilt ridden public--a blatant, fabricated lie--on his climb to political identity. ****

As for Gore and Bennett, the personality kids, the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of their soap operas--pick one.  Just add up the dollar amounts each will steal from a worker's pocket to bestow on the world.  The edge may be with Al, since he invented the internet and was the basis of that touching melodrama of a film, "Love Story."

Of course, one has to credit each of the with some expertise.  Bill can probably still toss a "three pointer" into the basket, and Al does have religion.  He is a Southern Baptist, so I suspect he prays. Now I only mention prayer because the issue was raised by George Bush. We know that Al is tolerant outside his Bible Belt affiliations, as he did attend a Buddhist ceremony.

George has exposed himself to great censure on the matter of his propensity to pray.  If I can offer him some gratuitous advice, I suggest he do so without kneeling in the Oval Offie as this genuflected position has cone into great disfavor of late. 

**** For the several generations not born at the time, Mr. Sharpton took up the cause, with great vehemence for which defamation was later found, of Tawana Brawley who claimed in 1987, that she had been raped by a number of white men, the letters KKK written on her chest and left smeared with feces.  She said that two of the men were from law enforcement. It was demonstrated that Ms. Brawley had lied in order to avoid being punished by her family for running away from home. Today, we have Ferguson, where a jury found for the police officer who killed Michael Brown, with the untrue mantra, "Hands up, don't shoot", or the Kavanaugh hearing where a Supreme Court candidate was accused of sexual misconduct without ANY evidence in order to prevent him from being appointed for fear of his conservative credentials. Up to here, the fear was unfounded. He appears to be more liberal than conservative in his interpretation of the Constitution.