There have come about, over the years, many terms to describe the simple fart.

Cutting the cheese, breaking wind, stepping on a duck (Rodney Dangerfield), malifluent miasma. (Possibly Churchill), air biscuit, Trump. (British), ass blast, barking spider, fluff, trouser cough, anal acoustics,  silent but deadly, toot, butt trumpet, queef, queaf, queeb, queif, quief, breaking wind, bottom burp, poot, poof, stinker, colon cough, sphincter scream, yesterday’s lunch holler, burrito belch, cheek cleavage calliope, vundersplatz, pumpernickel (at least the pumpern portion), geschwindigkeit, gerblatterputz, unsniffable Molly Brown blast, the southbound opinion of a northbound horse.

Most of these are humorously descriptive.

Now it’s your job. Find one that DOESN’T describe both congressional aisle’s words in today’s political debates. Take your time.

PETA president, Ingrid Newkirk has slammed a tribute to conservationist Steve Irwin, claiming he was doing more harm than good to wild animals by displaying them and interacting with them. Newkirk is fully entitled to her ignorant opinion.

The fact is,  nature shows displaying live fauna in the ways that Irwin and others do, (yes, even Marine World), do much to reduce fear of and endear wild animals to the public. Aside from their educational value, (something lacking in Newkirk’s world), these programs are invaluable in promoting the conservation of species.

Ingrid has made it crystal clear that a kumquat eaten on Wednesday morning could easily outthink her on Thursday morning.

The political left wants rich people to pay their fair share of taxes. Of course, they already pay a much higher percentage than the average Americans. The concept of financial equality is the issue here. The aim is to redistribute wealth. Everyone should have their fare share. Right? People own their money, but others are entitled to it. Right? That’s ridiculous. Really!

My wife is #6 among nine siblings her parents brought into this world. That’s a lot of kids by today’s standards. Many “would-be” parents are unable to produce one offspring. Question: When will we decide it’s only fair to take children from their birth parents and redistribute them to those not as fortunate? That’s ridiculous! Really?

We are told not to feed wild bears that are capable of foraging for themselves. The reason is obvious. The bears become dependent upon people feeding them and lose the desire and abilities to fend for themselves. That makes sense.

In an effort to subsidize the poor, we’ve instituted badly designed welfare programs which have paid monies to huge numbers of people who are capable of earning livings on their own. There are now generations of people who won’t even consider looking for gainful employment because they’ve been institutionalized into believing working for a living isn’t necessary. In some cases they make more money if they don’t work. That is ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

There are massive numbers of gun regulations on the books in the United States and yet there are those who would banish the private ownership of guns altogether. If you make guns illegal, the law-abiding citizens will relinquish them, leaving only the criminals with guns and the law-abiding citizens defenseless. That is ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

There are states within our nation where illegal aliens are granted the same rights as citizens and, in some cases, prioritized benefits. That is ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

Our Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech is being prioritized and denied according to who agrees with its content. That’s ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

There is a push to reduce penalties for crimes committed by demographics who commit more crime. That’s ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

SO, THEN……………………

When will the government redistribute children and cause us to say: That’s ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

The Constitution of the United States protects individuals’ rights from being violated by promoters of these ridiculous things. A republic is bound by the laws of its constitution. A democracy is not. Which do you choose?

As each day passes, I see the government requiring less and less personal responsibility from citizens. I see it trying to take personal responsibilities away from the voters and their families, claiming it can handle peoples’ responsibilities better than the people themselves. I see it attempting to set its own standards, rather than upholding the peoples’ standards. I see the government claiming it “is” society. I see society believing this.

As people cede their responsibilities, they become weaker. They become lazier and lose ambition. They don’t pay attention to what’s going on around them.They are willing to be blindly led  and adopt the views of others without question. The numbers of those who feel like disenfranchised victims must surge and do so accordingly.

Rumors and innuendo become more relevant than facts. Polling results are considered more important than facts. Partisan media report and promote news stories they, themselves, inspired.

This is how a society or nation loses its luster and devolves into prey for predatory states. I guess it’s a natural process having repeated itself countless times over millennia. Strangely,  we know the causes of the disease; and yet, we ignore, or worse still, approve of the tumors. This is because the tumors are handing out candy. This is known as “cake and circus”. Feed them. Entertain them. You own them.

 The government that doesn’t trust individuals to be responsible for themselves promotes this decay and is directly to blame for the outcome. Don’t bother trying to tell the Liberals. They won’t listen… which is a little weird because even liberals know feeding a bear that is capable of foraging for itself is bad for the bear.

Once again, an egocentric, self-impressed person proves his value to society as being far less than the orifice through which each of us pass solid bodily waste. However, the vulgar term for that orifice seems quite a suitable label for the person involved.

Daniel Pollack-Pelzner recently wrote an op-ed which the New York Times found worthy to publish. Pollack-Pelzner’s treatise intended to show the ways in which P.L. Traver’s “Mary Poppins” books displayed racial attitudes of years ago. Of course, so, too, did some works of Mark Twain. So, too, did some works by Al Jolson (considered the “Greatest Entertainer” for 40 years). But  Pollack-Pelzner lamely links “Mary Poppins” to the current “black face” outrage and indignations over past incidents recently in the news…some examples would be, TV personality, Megyn Kelly,  makeup mogul, Kim Kardashian and Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam.

In the case of the Mary Poppins movies, the “black face” was caused by chimney soot . A main character is a chimney sweep. Chimney sweeps got soot on their faces. There is absolutely no racial reference in those movies. Period! White folks who’ve spent their days toiling in a coal mine…are they racists?

So…what was Daniel Pollack-Pelzner’s impetus for writing his highly educational essay and offering it to the New York Times, rather than keeping it in a more appropriate, literary, collegiate setting? Could it have something to do with the way stirring up racial tensions brings a bit of celebrity with it?

The real question is whether Pollack-Pelzner’s article is as useful as the orifice who wrote it.