Election Time, Again

Well, it's that time o' year again when we folks in the United States of America go out 'n' decide what we want to complain about fer the next one er more years. The day we try to figger out who the smallest liar is 'n' whether er not we want to agree to vote ourselves another tax we can gripe about having to pay. The day we have to make an extra trip, carve a little extra time out of our busy schedules, 'n' put up with long lines full o' folks we normally wouldn't want to be within fifty feet of, just so we can put some marks on a sheet o' paper 'n' hope that enough other people're smart enough to put the same marks down so that our marks will actually count fer something. It's election day.

I was sharpening my tongue up fer a big ol' diatribe 'bout the sorry bunch o' folks we got to choose from this year. I was coming up with 'n' reviewing some, hopefully, witty 'n' scathing remarks 'bout the propositions they's trying to fool us into getting passed, er voting down. I was ready to lament the poor state o' the Arizona constitution, which they seem determined to keep hacking up, tacking on to, 'n' just generally rewriting ever' year. But then I read something last night that made me rethink the whole thing.

It was an article by Peter M. on his blog 'bout New England Folklore. Mr. M. said that, back in the early years o' this country, even 'for it was a country, folks used to vote in the fall fer their local officials even though the officials didn't take office until the next May. The day they took office in May was called "Election Day" 'n' was celebrated like a holiday. He says that, by 'bout the mid 1700's, the celebrations included such things as parades, parties, athletic events, 'n' even special cakes. The best part 'bout it was, it was a celebration 'bout the simple fact o' being able to elect folks. Nowadays, it seems like the only celebrating folks do 'bout elections is to celebrate that their side won er the other side lost.

So I read that. 'N' then I thought 'bout it a bit. 'N' then I thought 'bout it a bit more. 'N' then I thought 'bout all the time that has passed between then 'n' nowadays 'n' all the changes that have happened in this country 'n' the ways folks viewed the whole voting 'n' election processes during all those 250 to 300 years. Then I thought 'bout the way so many folks seem to treat voting these days.

I thought 'bout the stories I've read 'bout how they used to close down the bars 'n' taverns 'n' the pubs 'n' the buying o' liquor on election days 'n' how you couldn't buy a drink 'til after the polls'd closed 'cause going out to cast your vote was a serious, sober responsibility. Do they even still do that these days? I'd be willing to bet real money that I could walk down to the local grocery store 'n' buy a six pack er a fifth o' something er other 'n' wouldn't no one bat an eye. I bet I could walk into any bar in town at any time today 'n' watch folks getting drunker 'n' drunker as they watched the election news. I'd even be willing to bet that there'd be at least one person, already well past the "legal" limit, who'd suddenly stand up 'n' say, "Shoot! I ain't even voted yet," 'fore running out to the polls.

I thought 'bout the stories o' folks who would get dressed up in their Sunday best to go vote 'cause voting was so important 'n' serious as church. Now days it seems like folks just show up in whatever they happen to have on er whatever they can grab 'fore they head out. In the last Presidential election, there was even a few folks in line who hadn't even bothered to change out o' their bed clothes. (Although, I guess I should give 'em credit fer being so eager 'n' dedicated to vote in that one that they was willing to get up at all that early in the morning.)

 I thought 'bout all those folks back 'fore there were cars who had to walk er ride miles 'n' miles to get to where they was supposed to go to vote 'cause it was so important to 'em. So many of 'em today seem to treat it more like some kind o' chore er drudge than the right er privilege that it is. They seem to approach it like it's some sort of odious task, like having to clean the cat box er jury duty er something. The biggest thing these days seem to be all the folks signing up to early vote er vote by mail so they don't have to take that extra time out o' their day to go do it. Personally, I get a big shot o' pride walking up to that desk 'n' taking pen in hand to mark all those little circles. I stand a little taller when I walk out o' the building with my little "I Voted" sticker tacked onto my shirt. I ain't never seen it as a chore ner an imposition. I've always seen it as a solemn something I'm more'n proud 'n' happy 'n' honored to do.

'N' I thought 'bout the idea of a bunch o' dour, humorless Puritans kicking their heels up 'n' having celebrations 'cause the folks they got to pick was stepping into office, instead of a bunch o' folks someone else had lumped 'em with. Now days it seems like so many folks're so busy voting 'gainst something er someone they cain't take no joy in their decisions.  Maybe that's why we ain't having no parades ner parties ner even special cakes to celebrate the fact that the folks we get to pick're stepping into office. Maybe too many folks these days're feeling like they's stuck with a bunch o' folks someone else lumped 'em with 'cause they felt like they couldn't vote fer who they really wanted lest the "wrong" person wound up winning.

So I thought 'bout all this stuff 'n' I decided I was going to try 'n' learn a lesson from the way they viewed elections back in the olden days. From here on out, I'm going to try 'n' keep my sharp tongue in my pocket on election day. I'm going to try 'n' keep my civil tongue in my mouth on the days I get the privilege o' going to the polls 'n' jotting down my two cents' worth in the form o' little dots on a page. I'm going to try 'n' show the day the respect it rightfully deserves 'n', who knows, maybe next year I'll even make a special cake on the day. 'Sides, I got all the other days o' the year to take my sharp tongue out o' my pocket 'n' use it.

I'll Drink ('n' Drive) to That

Saw a story online 'bout a feller who lost an argument with a train the other day. The feller's name was Jason Michael Hair 'n' the altercation took place near Queen Creek, Arizona, which is a little southeast o' Phoenix. What happened was, he was speeding down the road, texting on his cell phone, 'n' broke right through the crossing arms and smacked into the side o' the train, which was already in the process o' crossing the road. One witness to the crash claimed that Hair had passed him, doing somewhere near 65 mph, so intent on his typing to whoever was on the other end o' the phone that he either didn't notice the train, er was unaware o' just how fast he was going 'n' couldn't stop in time. (Makes me wonder just what he was typing, too. "Hey! I'm going to try for one of those "Darwin Awards"!")

They said the crash was so bad that Hair had to be cut out o' the wreckage 'n' suffered a head injury. Now, you might be thinking, "Well, he got what he deserved for being so stupid, then," 'n' you might be right. The thing was, though, that his four-year-old boy was in the car with him. The son survived, too, but he also had to be cut out o' the wreckage 'n' was flown to a local hospital as a precaution. Whatever Hair may have deserved fer his stupidity, his boy sure didn't deserve to suffer fer it.

Anyways, this story got me to thinking 'bout the last time I was up fer jury duty. See, the case we was being considered to jury fer was a drunk driving case. (They didn't actu'ly say that, but when they start asking prospective jurors questions 'bout whether they've ever been convicted o' drunk driving er whether er not they er a loved one has ever been involved in an accident that was caused by a drunk driver, you kind o' get the indication that that's what the whole thing's 'bout.) More important, it was just after they'd started running news stories 'bout studies done on the dangers o' yapping on the phone er texting while you're driving.

So, once they'd picked their first dozen possible jurors 'n' sent the rest of us out in the hall while they questioned 'em a little more intensely, I sat there thinking 'bout those studies 'n' 'bout how they was some that claimed to show that yapping on the phone er texting while driving was least as dangerous, if not more so, than driving after a few drinks. Then I got to thinking 'bout how one o' these dangerous practices had been illegal fer decades while the other still didn't have no laws 'gainst it.

Well, that was the direction my thoughts was running in when it turned out that there was some o' the original twelve who'd been dismissed, so they come out to question some o' the rest of us more closely, me being one o' those they chose. They took me in 'n' sat me down in a chair 'n' started asking me 'bout the time I'd been in an accident 'caused by someone who had given all appearances o' having been three sheets in the wind at the time. (Never did learn what that feller's problem was 'cause he wound up pleading guilty to the accident 'fore it ever got to trial. But when the guy leaves the scene o' the accident 'n' then shows up fifteen minutes er so later, pushing his car in the opposite direction 'cause it ain't working so good no more, you got to wonder 'bout what kind o' state his mental faculties 'n' judgement abilities're in.) All those questions was fairly easy to answer, 'cause all I had to do was tell the truth.

Then the judge turns to me 'n' asked,"Is there any reason that you think you could not render a fair and impartial verdict in this case?" Well, I had to stop 'n' give that question some real consideration 'fore I answered it. I mean, here was a guy who was being tried fer doing something that was no more dangerous than what other folks was doing with no fear o' being hauled into court fer. So I told the judge that it just didn't sit right with me that this feller was facing the possibility o' legal repercussions fer doing something when there were studies that showed that something that was just as dangerous was considered perfectly fine 'n' legal.

To my surprise, the judge agreed with me 'bout how he also thought that yapping on the phone while driving should be just as illegal as driving while intoxicated. But, he said, as a judge, his concern had to be with the law, 'n' since the law 'lowed one o' those actions while outlawing the other one, he didn't get to choose which ones appeared in his court. So he changed his question a might 'n' asked if I could overlook my opinions on driving while yapping 'n' render a fair 'n' impartial verdict based strictly on the law as it stood at that moment.

I gave that a little more thought 'n' decided that, since I was a law-abiding citizen, it was my duty to see that the law was upheld 'n' render a verdict o' guilty if I felt that the prosecution had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the feller had in fact been legally drunk at the time o' his apprehension. So that's what I told the judge. He thanked me fer my time 'n' sent me out o' the room while they brought in the next person to question. (I wasn't picked to serve on that jury, by the way.)

Since then, I've given the topic a lot more thought. Mostly what I've thought about was this: Where do my duties as a law-abiding citizen really lie? Is it merely to see that the law, all laws, no matter whether I agree with 'em er not, are upheld? Don't I, as a citizen who loves his country 'n' should be concerned 'bout the rights of all my fellow citizens, also have a duty to fight against laws that are unjust 'n' discriminatory? If a law singles out one group o' folks fer punishment while 'lowing other groups o' folks to get away scott free fer doing something that is just as bad er dangerous, what is my duty then? Do I side with the law, er with the citizens who are being discriminated 'gainst?

Isn't the law supposed to treat all folks equally? Shouldn't the law treat the drunk driver just the same as it treats the person who's yapping er typing on his phone while driving? 'N' what about the person who's so busy putting on makeup, er trying to read a road map, er eating, er yelling at the kids, er changing the station on the radio? (We actually did have a case like that a few years back where a young boy hit 'n' killed a lady on the side o' the road 'cause he'd looked down to change the radio. I don't 'member the partic'lars, but I'm pretty sure he got off with a lot lighter sentence than he would have if he'd had a couple beers in him.) Aren't those distractions just as dangerous as being drunk er texting?

'N' what about a law that penalizes folks fer what they might do? That's what a lot o' these drunk driving (er "driving while intoxicated" er "driving under the influence" er whatever else they call 'em) laws're actu'ly punishing folks fer. I would be willing to bet real money that most folks who get convicted fer such offenses did so when they hadn't actu'ly 'caused any accident yet. They were hauled into court simply 'cause o' what they might do.

Seems to me we should have just one law that applies to ever'body: a "driving while distracted" law, if you will. It would apply equally to anyone who has been drinking, anyone who is yapping on a phone, typing on a phone, putting on makeup, trying to read a road map, eating, yelling at the kids, changing the station on the radio, er whatever else it is they might be doing that takes their attention away from their driving. I just don't see how I can continue supporting anything less.

So, if I ever get in another situation where a judge asks me if I can offer a fair 'n' impartial verdict based strictly on the law as it stood at that moment, I guess I would have to answer with I could only do so if the law, as it stood at that moment, was fairly 'n' equally applied to all folks who could fit in the broader scope o' the spirit o' that law 'n' what it was enacted to protect us against. I'm willing to bet I wouldn't get chosen fer that jury, neither.

Smoke 'em if you can afford 'em

Here we go again. Big gov'ment is strapping on its size 13 moral-superiority clodhoppers 'n' is getting ready to start trompling all over the rights of a maligned minority 'cause it's the "right thing to do". That's right, they's raising the taxes on tobacco products. Again. When it takes effect on Wednesday, it will be the single largest federal tobacco tax increase ever. The tax on a single pack o' smokes will go from 39 cents to just over a dollar. ($1.01, to be precise.) Taxes on cigars 'n' pipe 'n' smokeless tobacco will be increased, as well. The tax on chewing tobacco, fer example, will increase from 19.5 cents to 50 cents per pound.

Course, the claim it's all fer a good cause. Ain't that always the excuse they trot out when they decide to infringe on the rights o' some minority group er the other - that it's fer the "public good"? This time, they say they're going to use the tobacco taxes to help finance a major expansion o' health insurance fer children. While that may be a good use to put their extorted funds towards, in actual practice the idea is just plain stupid.

Now, I know you're prob'ly thinking, "Stupid? Ain't that rather a harsh word to use, Random?" Well, that's as maybe. But when it's the right word, it's the right word, 'n' I ain't going to shy away from using it. It is a stupid idea. Just look at the thing logically, which, obviously, the gov'ment ain't doing. They's claiming it's a win-win situation. First off, they's raising money to help fund child care. I admit, that's a good thing. Then, they claim that it will provide further incentive fer tobacco users to quit their bad habits, which will improve their health.

Let's just leave the health "benefits" o' less tobacco use aside fer right now 'n' concentrate on the
consequences o' diminished tobacco use among the general population. The first thought that springs to mind is: less tobacco use means less tobacco purchases which means a decrease in the revenues from tobacco taxes which means less money fer child health care. That's a lose-win, the children lose but the tobacco users "win" 'cause they're "healthier". If, on the other hand, there isn't a decrease in the number o' tobacco users, er if it even increases 'cause folks want to raise that money fer the kiddies, then it's a win-lose 'cause the tobacco users get singled out fer an unfairly disproportianate tax increase. On the third hand, we have the most likely scenario, which is a lose-lose fer ever'body. There will be a decrease in the number o' tobacco users, which will mean a decrease in the tax revenue fer the kiddies, which will mean another unfair tax increase on tobacco, which will mean fewer tobacco users, which will mean a decrease in the tax revenue fer the kiddies, which will mean another unfair tax increase on tobacco, which will mean fewer tobacco users... 'n' so on.

If they want to tax someone to raise money fer child health care, tax the deep pockets, not the folks already struggling with their finances. Make the petroleum companies pay fer it. I'd be willing to bet real money that more deaths in this country can be linked, either directly er indirectly, to the manufacturing 'n' use o' petroleum products than the manufacturing 'n' use o' tobacco. Er they could go after the drug companies. They're the ones who are, probably, most responsible fer the skyrocketing cost o' healthcare in this country, anyway. Make 'em put back some o' what they've taken. If they really want to make some money 'n' a tangible differ'nce at the same time, legalize the illegal drugs 'n' tax them.

Now there's a win-win. Maybe even a win-win-win er a win-win-win-win. They'd get more money fer the younguns that way than they could ever dream o' getting from tobacco users. If drugs was legal, they could regulate their manufacture 'n' quality, which means less deaths 'n' health problems from bad drugs. It would also pull the rug out from under the drug cartels 'n' the gangs running drugs in this country. That would mean less violence, less criminals, less folks in jail, safer neighborhoods, 'n' healthier environments fer the children o' drug families.

If they insist on placing the burden on the shoulders o' the tobacco user, then I say the tobacco user's in this country should stand up 'n' make themselves heard. I don't mean standing up in shouting 'bout how unfair it is er writing letters to congressfolks er any o' that, 'cause ain't no one going to listen to 'em if they's just using words. I mean they should speak with their wallets. What I'd like to see happen is fer ever' tobacco user in the country to quit buying tobacco products fer at least six months. Turn off that tax tap 'n' see what the gov'ment does when the tobacco users say, "No, you cain't have my money!" Maybe then they'll see the light 'n' actually try something intelligent fer a change. I know, asking the gov'ment to do something intelligent is like asking a chicken to lay hard boiled eggs. I can still dream, though. Least, until they find a way to tax that, too.

Stop the Presses!

I am so proud o' my local newpaper. They have finally reared up on their hind legs 'n' shown some backbone, some leadership, some strength, some courage, some intestinal fortitude, some outright (please forgive my use o' local slang) cajones. The local paper today decided to thumb its nose at the conventional wisdome on what constitutes news 'n' how it should be reported. Forget that we got troops fighting overseas. Forget that we got personal, local, state, national, 'n' international financial crises. Forget the climate problems. Forget that we got a new President in office who seems intent on getting more done in his first month in office than most other folks have managed to get done in their first year.

Forget all that stuff. The local editors 'n' reporters have decided that the single biggest item o' news they could report in today's paper, at least in terms o' space dedicated to it (at least a quarter to a third o' the front page, with a big ol' pi'ture to boot), was a nice little piece 'bout folks getting their pi'tures taken. O' course, it weren't just any ol' pi'ture taking event. It's this new project the city has undertaken to help "beautify" a new underpass into the downtown area they's spending $26 million on to complete. What happened was, they've contracted with this group o' photographers to go 'round town fer a few months 'n' take pi'tures o' folks that they are then going to put on tiles to be used to cover panels at the entrances to the underpass.

'N' that's just how they reported it. They didn't bother wtih anything that would have taken away from the charm 'n' feel-good nature o' the story. They didn't bother to comment on the downturn in American ingenuity er the failure of American technoloy that is forcing 'em to send the photos down to Brazil 'cause America ain't got the know how ner skills to prduce tiles that would be UV-proof. Ner did they bother to question why the town elders decided that, in this time of economic downturn 'n' budget deficits, it was more important to spend this money on "make-up" instead o' using it fer infrastructure er to help the indigent er fer education er something important.

No, sir. They seem to feel that, if we just start ignoring er downplaying all the negative stuff going on, it'll all just go away. Keep it light. Keep it uplifting. That'll help sell papers 'n' make us feel better. Course, it could o' been worse. They might have gone with a celebrity update er, worst of all, a sports story.

Anyone fer Thirds?

Well, it looks they finally made it official. Maybe. Seems the powers that be decided they'd better give Oprama a second shot at the swearing in yeste'day to make sure it took. I reckon they woke up like the rest of us 'n' found that the market was still down, unemployment was still up, the troops was still out o' the country, folks was still in deep financial troubles, 'n' they wasn't no heavenly choirs singing "Hallelujah" 'n' figured that, maybe, Oprama weren't officially President yet since they messed up the oath the first time 'round. So they dragged ol' Mr. Chief Justice John Roberts out o' bed, made him dress back up in his black gown, 'n' had him try it again in the White House Map Room.

There were witnesses there, including some members o' the press, but they didn't 'low no cameras in the room, so they ain't got no real proof that what they said happened actually happened. Also, they claim that there weren't no Bible used this time. So maybe it didn't take the second time, neither, since ever'one woke up today to find that the market was still down, unemployment was still up, the troops was still out o' the country, folks was still in deep financial troubles, 'n' they wasn't no heavenly choirs singing "Hallelujah". Maybe they need to take a third run at the thing 'n' make sure they get ever' little thing right including having a Bible (I got a Gideon I can loan 'em if they's desperate) 'n' having pictures taken 'n' doing it in front o' the whole country with all the right words spoken in all the right order.

The whole thing has got me wondering if Mr. Chief Justice John Roberts got that memo that Jr. was supposed to have sent 'round 'bout how he didn't want any o' his folks pulling any shenanigans during the change-over. After all, Mr. Chief Justice John Roberts is one o' Jr.'s appointees, so maybe he's just fooling around, trying to complicate things 'n' either just make Oprama look bad er out-'n'-out invalidate his claims to office. Look fer all this to come back up when the Republicans decide to start talking impeachment after they decide enough time has passed to bring it up.

Course, none o' this stopped, er even slowed down, Oprama's acting like President. In his first day in office, he put a stop to trials at Guantanamo, claimed he was going to close the detention facility there withing a year, imposed new limits on lobbyists including banning them from giving gifts to anyone serving in the administration, froze the salaries o' White House aides making more than $100,000, met with the Joint Chiefs o' Staff 'bout changes in how to handle the campaigns in Iraq 'n' Afghanistan, presided over the White House meeting on the economy, 'n' talked by phone with leaders in the Middle East. 'N' that was just some o' the things he did.

President er not, looks like maybe, just maybe, this feller has finished cutting his bait 'n' is ready to start doing some actual fishing. I don't care so much 'bout all his fancy talking. It's his doing that I'm concerned 'bout. 'N', from where I'm sitting, his doing in one day so far has given me more hope than all his talking did in the past 12 months.

The Changing o' the Guard

Just a few quick thoughts on the inauguration 'n' speech 'fore the pundits, spin-doctors, nay-sayers, 'n' other assorted 'n' sundry "experts" ruin it for ever'one.

Firstly: Oprama seemed like an eager little beaver, didn't he. He just couldn't wait to light into the oath 'n' get it over with so he could get to officially call himself president, could he?

Secondly: Why has he got such a problem with saying that he will "faithfully" perform his duties?

Thirdly: What has he got against the brave soldiers who have fought 'n' died fer their country since the end o' the Korean war?

Fourthly: A campaign 'n' nomination acceptance speech that were compared to/paralleled President Jack's - a train trip 'n' Bible that were last used by President Lincoln - an inauguration on the day after MLK day: coincedences, smart politicking, er eerie omens/premonitions o' bad things to come?

The United? States of America

As I was watching the election returns on NBC Tuesday night, I noticed something as they was declaring which states' majorities voter fer Oprahma 'n' which states' majorities voted fer the Arizona also-ran. What I noticed was the way the reds 'n' the blues was dividing themselves up. If you start at the Canadian border 'round 'bout Montana 'n' head due south, you notice ever'thing's a bright shade o' red, 'cept fer a little blue lake in the middle of it 'round 'bout Colorado 'n' New Mexico. Once you hit the Mexican border, make a 90 degree turn 'n' head due east. You'll keep seeing red 'til you run out o' land 'n' hit the Atlantic. Add Alaska into the mix, 'n' that's what the Arizona also-ran won: a big chunk o' the west, the western half o' the mid-west, 'n' the south, 'cept fer Florida which is no surprise since they's all just displaced New Yorkers.

The next thing I noticed was when Oprahma stood up to give his acceptance speech. Right up front he said, "...we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America." That struck me at the time, 'cause all I could think was, "United? Ain't you seen that map, yet? You may have the minds 'n' the strong backs o' the northeast, northen middle states 'n' the west coast, but looks like the heart 'n' stomach o' this country still belongs to the other side."

So I decided to get out my copy of Excel 'n' play 'round with a few o' the numbers. Now, let me point out a couple o' things right off the bat, here. First off, this ain't meant to be in no way a slam on Mr. Oprahma. The man's got my, tentative, respect 'n' support. He won the thing fair 'n' square. (Er, at least as fair 'n' square as you can win an election in America these days.) I ain't trying to take nothing away from him. Secondly, this is just a little home grown analyzing. I ain't 'n' don't claim to be no kind of an expert on politics, statistics, analysis, er any o' that other stuff 'n' am generally fairly leary of anyone else who tries to prove anything by showing me a bunch o' numbers they been playing 'round with.

So, having said that, here's some o' the things I come up with: Firstly, Oprahma won the election with 364 electoral votes to 174 fer the Arizona also-ran out of a total of 538 possible. That's a differ'nce of 190. Looked at another way, that's 68% vs. 32% - better than two-thirds o' the electoral votes. That looks pretty impressive, but only if you compare it to the two presidential elections before the more recent one, when President Jr. was running. He won his first time by only 5 electoral votes 'n' the second time by only 15. If we go back past that, they ain't been another Presidential contest as close as this since former President Carter beat former President Ford way back in 1976 by only 57 electoral votes. That means that all the elections since then, with the exception o' President Jr.'s two wins, were bigger blowouts.

Still, a two to one majority of electoral votes is pretty impressive. But that's the electoral votes. When we get down to real folks, it don't look quite as impressive. 'Cording to the numbers I've found, Oprahma won only 29, er 57%, o' the states (plus the D.C. area) to 22 states, er 43%, on the other side. That's quite a bit less than a two-thirds majority in terms o' state-by-state counts. He just happened to pick up more o' the big ticket states. If we look at it by population, then things get even closer. According to statistics fer the, projected, populations o' the United States fer 2007, Oprahma won only 53% o' the vote by population vs. 46% fer the opposition.

Now, like I said, this is just a home grown analysis 'n' I ain't no professional in the field, which means I ain't got the fancy numbers available to me that other folks have, so I cain't speak to how any state's registered voters reflect the thinking of a state's population as a whole. But 53% vs. 46% looks like a lot less unity among folks than the electoral votes might lead us to believe.

Looks like Oprahma may not be the great healer 'n' unifier folks was hoping he'd be. Not yet, at any rate. He's still got eight years to work on it, though. 'N' he seems to realize it. He said he would listen to us, especially when we disagree. Good thing he's got more ears than the rest of us, 'cause with, what looks like, 46% o' the population not too sure 'bout what he's had to say so far, I'd say he's got a lot o' listening heading his way.

Say Hello to the Next Eight Years

America woke up yeste'day morning 'n' breathed a huge sigh o' relief that the long, dark nightmare was finally over. I ain't talking 'bout the nightmare o' President Jr.'s stint in office. I ain't talking 'bout the nightmare o' the financial crisis. I ain't even talking 'bout the nightmare that we might have to put up with four more years o' Republican hi-jinks. I'm talking 'bout the year-long nightmare o' name calling, mud slinging, muck raking, back stabbing, dirty tricks, voting fraud, questionable financing, 'n' out 'n' out lying that makes American voting the greatest kind o' Democracy in the world.

That's right. We done went 'n' elected ourselves a new President. 'N' not just any new President at that. No sir. We went 'n' elected a President that is not only the first o' his kind in American history, but, quite possibly, the first o' his kind in the world. Yes, sir, we got us our very first Siamese twin fer President. You know who I'm talking 'bout: President-elect Oprahma - half female entertainer 'n' half male politician.

So, not only has he got to deal with the problems o' being the first-of-his-kind American President 'n' the problems with the economy facing him when he takes office 'n' the problems facing America abroad 'n' the problems o' dealing with terrorism 'n' drugs 'n' illegal immigration 'n' raising two young girls in the public spotlight 'n' trying to house train a new puppy without damaging anything in the Lincoln bedroom, now he has to figure out how to juggle running a media empire, hosting a top TV show, 'n' being the leader o' the free world, as well. Good thing he's got two heads 'n' four hands, 'cause he's gonna need all of 'em.

Now, I know y'all want to just sit back, take a deep breath, let the past year slide quietly into the history books, 'n' gather your strength over the next two months so you can start griping 'bout what a lousy job the new guys doing soon as he takes office, but I got one more bit o' campaign information to share with you. 'N' this ain't 'bout the campaign that just ended, but the one we get to look forward to in another three years er so. Don't worry, it'll be quick 'n' painless.
All I want to say is, let's just skip the whole thing next time 'round. I ain't no supporter of Oprahma's, but I predicted this result way back last year when I first heard he'd th'owed his hat into the ring. I said to myself at the time, "Well, there's your next President." 'N' I was right. In fact, I been right 'bout ever' President since Carter, when I first started paying attention to these kinds o' things. I may not know much 'bout "cultural shifts" er "pendulum swings" er even politics in general, but I can smell the next President coming at least three months 'fore the conventions even get under way.

So, take the hint from me 'n' don't even worry 'bout next time 'round just yet. We didn't just elect the President fer the next four years: we just elected the President fer the next eight years. That's right. I'm already predicting an Oprahma win in 2012. All he's got to do is live through the next four years, 'n', given American history, that may be the toughest job of all he'll have to face.