Evolution:

It's time to take the subject of Evolution to a level that would resonate with the social class who still somewhat derisively refer to it as Darwinism.

Let us leave Darwin's Galapagos and its unique flora and fauna alone for a moment and come closer to home. To my recollection, it was at some time during or immediately after WWII that the subject of penicillin first emerged upon the social consciousness. Hailed as a miracle antibiotic, penicillin was immediately employed, needed or not, to hasten the healing of all kinds of infections.

Following Dr. Alexander Fleming's proven formula for raiding the world of molds for healing potions, other researchers began to produce all kinds of antibiotics to try promote easy and rapid healing of all infections, real or imagined.

It took less than four years for researchers to begin to notice diminishing returns. The microbes were developing strains increasingly resistant to the overused healing potions.
Clearly, these microbes were evolving right before their microscope optics.

That's what microbes do best. Able to generate new offspring within hours, if not minutes, the process of natural selection was able to stay ahead of the game.

This alone should have served to verify Charles Darwin's conclusions on how species develop and survive, but sometimes it is impossible to convince minds set in rock-solid ideology.

If the truth were acknowledged, it's not just living things that evolve. We now know that stars evolve, galaxies evolve, and the whole universe is caught firmly in the grip of evolution. While it is not a contest of survival of the fittest, everything is on an evolutionary track to a foreseeable end.

Trump for Prez:

My choice for prez of the US of A from this side of the border would be Donald Trump. It's an easy way to antagonize all of the left-leaning media who have done their best over the years to make The Donald look inept.

For God's sake, the guy's a multi-billionaire. Unlike the vast majority of his critics, he must have done more than just a few things right in making his life's vital decisions.

Regardless of how one views Trump, one thing is for sure. Trump is not a member of that gang of media-led, politically correct, irrationally inclusive sycophants that have taken it unto themselves to tailor opinions for Americans who have none of their own. Due to advances in media technology put within easy reach of the chaotic end of our social spectrum, they have done that successfully and are in the process of going ahead and doing it some more.

It is high time to eviscerate this element from the social consciousness on both sides of our border in order to get back into some semblance of reality.

Trump strikes me as exactly the kind of individual who can get in there and stir the witches' brew that the social consciousness of America has become back into something people can once again believe in.

From here, it is easy to see Trump as the guy who can deter the Americans from continuing the painful process of electing people for attributes that have nothing to do with what is actually required for the post. 

In Canada, just to be non-traditional, we've been electing politicians for such qualities as charisma, ethnicity, skin color, sex, sexuality, and physical condition. Track record, street smarts and actual experience are of low priority.

In October, we did it again.

The Americans are currently being media-programmed by the forces of political correctness and all-inclusivity to do the same.

Trump just might be America's last chance to hang on to some semblance of significance on the international scene which is currently in a state of erosion in a rapidly changing world.

He may not have a hairstyle the lefty media can admire, but there's no question he has something most politicians today lack: the backbone to do what's right instead of just how to get elected.

Since, as a multi-billionaire, he's already independently wealthy, we know for sure that he's not after the gilded lifestyle, golden parachutes and pensions the politicians reserve for themselves.

Non-traditional Choices

The Canadian electorate has made non-traditional choices in our leadership since the '60s.

First, 20 years after the successful conclusion of WWII, we elected as prime minister a guy who contrived to avoid military service during that war. That wasn't too shocking at the time since we had on hand an influx of draft dodgers from across the border hiding out in Canada.

And having made that curious decision, we broke with the tradition for the post of Governor General of Canada. Instead of selecting someone with a solid record of service to the British Empire, or of some real significance to Canada, the powers -that-be began to offer us more non-traditional, marginally-significant people with mysterious credentials for such public posts.

Clearly, the appointments had taken on a non-traditional aura. We ordinary working people were mystified by some of the choices, but were actually too busy to ask questions and did nothing as these things were sneaked past us.

And, as a matter of fact, that is still being done. Many of those appointments are still mysterious.

We were first with a prime minister in the form of a female. While easier to look at, she turned out to be clearly a poor choice for the job at hand as events quickly showed.

It might be assumed, with some accuracy, that the Canadian electorate was kept in the dark on the choice of candidates for many of these posts. We also have to assume those choices were made by behind-the-scenes committees comprising manipulative individuals of politically-correct, all-inclusive, non-traditional headspace, making full use of electronic advances to spread their propaganda to condition the electorate.

Unimpeded by a formalized and largely unnecessary Charter of Rights and Privileges, our US neighbors carried on as usual for a while. Eventually, they succumbed to the new social order and elected a not-quite-white president. In the absence of other visible attributes, it is easy to assume that the colour of his epidermis was taken into account.

Now it seems they are polishing up a white female for that role. Hilary Clinton is making strong waves in the left-leaning media. It is possible her proponents see her as potential material largely because she is a female, the wife of a former president.

In our current social consciousness, female is in, white male is out. The white male's historically recorded past achievements are forgotten and all of society's ills are attributed to him.

Years of media sloganeering with such terms as pro-active and affirmative action are bearing results.

In Canada, the liberal party is fielding for the post of prime minister the son of a previous prime minister despite the fact he has zero political experience and shows few qualifications that might be viewed as what's needed. (Oh, yeah. He's a pretty good boxer.)

Obviously, fielding this guy shows that the liberals have enough confidence in the Canadian electorate's collective lack of good judgement to actually elect someone with such qualifications.

Wouldn't our North American voters who have been led to fall for the politically correct, non-traditional, all-inclusive sloganeering be better off if they were offered candidates who are at once (1)sexually indeterminate, (2)with multi-colored skin, (3)judgement-impaired (4)of unevolved ethnicity, and (5)physically handicapped? 

Since our democracies are at stake here, would that not get this painful, drawn-out process of politically correct, none-traditional all-inclusiveness out of the way all at once so that we could return to fielding candidates with actual qualifications for the job at hand?

Just asking.