President Obama is sitting in an interview with a reporter when he is harassed by a fly. The fly has a purpose for seeking to alight on the President. Perhaps it is bite him, or to eat microscopic crumbs of chicken on his upper lip from his lunch, or to just sit down and go to the bathroom.
Barack eyes the offensive little creature and thinks to himself, "I am going to kill you, you little turd-chomper". He raises his hand and focuses intently on the fly. He's just about to take a vicious swipe at the insect when a grizzly bear comes roaring into the room and devours the President to the last knuckle.
Now the grizzly bear was hungry and needed his lunch so he was only being a grizzly bear in eating the President as any rationale bear would tell you. But as the grizzly bear licked the last of President Obama off his chops the fly buzzed in and lit on the Presidential drippings on the carpet. The bear struck out with its massive paw and jellied the insect where it sat.
Should PETA denounce the bear's callous disregard for insect life? Or is it part of being a bear to squash small insects as much as eating Presidents and as much as being eaten by a bear is a natural part of a being human being in close proximity to a hungry bear.
Perhaps killing potentially dangerous insects is instinctual to human survival to prevent spread of bacteria and disease to our bodies.
I am puzzled by the extreme left just as I am puzzled at the extreme right. Both ends of the political spectrum seem to check their common sense at the middle and then meander into the nonsensical outer boundaries of intelligent thought.
Perhaps the "extreme's" purpose is as natural as a human swatting a fly or a bear eating a human or a bear squashing an insect. Perhaps they serve as touch stones to our sanity so we will know - like a buoy in the water warning of deep water - that we're wandering into dangerous thinking; that we're too near the edges.
So thanks PETA, keep on bobbing out there at the edge of sanity.
tweet this!