Will I run for office? The short answer is ‘no’; the longer answer is ‘no way’

By David McElroy · November 29, 2011

I’ve been reading your articles in the last two weeks and find myself agreeing with what you say. Have you ever thought about running for office? We need people like you!

Have I thought about it? Yes. Do I have any intention of doing it now? No.

There was a time in the past when I believed it was possible to bring about change through the electoral political system, so I was seriously interested in running for office. Or maybe I was simply still egotistical enough to believe that maybe I could make a difference. Either way, I don’t believe now it’s possible to solve the problems, both because of the size of the problems and because of the nature of the voting public.

Even if I thought it might be possible — in the pragmatic sense — to fix things, I’ve come to the conclusion that the entire system of choosing a person to “run the country” is pretty darned immoral. (I know we have Congress to technically make the laws, but you know what I mean.) I’m happy to have you join us. If you stick around (and maybe poke through older articles), I think my position on this will become more clear. Either way, you flatter me by suggesting the possibility. Thanks.

I am currently a sophomore enrolled at [Big Name] University. I am currently in a Political Science course, in which I have to write a paper explaining the purpose of radical thought in our political tradition. I read a few of your columns on radical ideas and I was curious to see what role you think radical thought plays in U.S politics. Thanks in advance.

You’d have to be way more specific than that for me to even hope to give you any useful answer, but off the top of my head I’ll say that pretty much any change that’s ever happened in this country — even going back to its founding — was a “radical idea” before people accepted it. The idea of independence from Britain was pretty radical. The idea of freeing slaves was radical. The idea of women voting was radical. The idea of prohibiting people from drinking alcohol was radical. And on and on and on. Every break with the status quo seems radical at first, but once more people accept it, it seems obvious.

We are doing a writing project in our government class about the election and I am writing about President Obama and Mr. Romney the Republican. Can you tell me how thier position on issues is different and why they are different? It would save me a lot of research and you sound like you would know. Thank you.

This sounds like a way to get me to do your research. I’ll make you a deal. If you write me a really killer article that’s worth publishing here, I’ll write the answer your teacher is looking for you to do and you can turn it in if you don’t mind cheating. (I can offer this deal since I know you won’t take it.)

But the very short answer to your question is that the two men are pretty much identical except for skin color.

Do you think something terrible is going to happen in 2012? Also, what do you think about the chemtrails they’re spraying our atmosphere with? Don’t you agree the New World Order is trying to kill a large part of the population slowly so they can take us over?

I think a lot of bad things are going to happen in 2012. I also think a lot of really great things are going to happen in 2012. But there’s absolutely zero evidence that it’s the end of the world or that the Mayans predicted something bad. That’s just superstitious nonsense. If you don’t believe me, check back on new year’s day of 2013 and we’ll discuss the concept of gullibility.

As for so-called “chemtrails,” please take off the tin foil hat. I don’t trust much of anything that government says or does at face value, but nothing about the whole chemtrail conspiracy has ever made any sense. There’s nothing to it. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a black helicopter to catch for a meeting with the Masons and the Illuminati. I think the Bilderbergers are coming, too. But thanks for writing.

If you have a question for David, drop him a line at davidmcelroy@mac.com. He can’t promise to answer all questions, but he’ll try. He also can’t promise not to make fun of you if the question is especially funny.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts