The Time For Talk — An old short story explaining the Trump/Putin Nuclear Policy

THE TIME FOR TALK

A Short Story by Tim McMullen

The glass sparkled as he held it up to the light. He poked the towel into the mouth with his fingers and wiped it again; then he reached up and placed it on the shelf beside the other glasses. He quickly picked up a fork and began to rub it.

"Sure," he said, scratching with his fingernail at some unidentifiable crust of food, "I know everybody's making a big deal about it, but it's mostly just bull."

"What do you mean by that?" the woman said as she lifted her hands out of the water and rinsed the soap off a saucepan.

"I just mean that we've been through it all before. The scare stories…the tests ...the drills. You remember, when we were kids, the plan we had to follow?"

She placed a newly rinsed spatula in the drain rack and raised a quizzical eyebrow.

"You know the rule ...but then, maybe you don't ...being a hick and all," he grinned and then ducked the water which he knew would be flicked in his direction. "All us city kids learned the four magic rules: When you see the light," he chanted, "turn your back to the windows, get under your desk, put your head between your legs, and KISS YOUR ASS GOODBYE!"

"That's disgusting," she giggled and flicked both water-drenched hands in his direction. He caught one stream on the right cheek before he grabbed her hands and pulled her to him. He clasped both her wrists in his left hand and lifted them above her head as he encircled her waist with his right arm.

"AH-AH-AH! You'll lose your kitchen help," he said.

He kissed her playfully. She kissed him back, saying: "Hmph! Some help you are." She wrinkled her forehead and looked into his face.

He looked back at her for a second and then peered intently at the fistful of forks in his hand, inspecting each one carefully as he placed it in its proper slot in the drawer.

"I'm catching up!" he laughed as he reached for the last item in the drain rack. The muffled clank of pans rose from the dishwater as she submerged her hands.

"Besides," he said finally, "What do you want from me? It's just not that big a deal. I mean we've been through it before. Everybody gets all stirred up for nothing. Nobody's stupid enough to start something ... Not even the Russians. Gimme a break! They know we'd blow hell out of 'em if they ever tried to hit us ...and we're never gonna' start it, so why get all excited?"

"How do you know we'll never start it?" Her fine, brown hair flipped from her face as she looked at him over her shoulder.

"We just don't do that kind of thing. We stop wars...We don't start them. That's a fact."

"Maybe, but there's only one country that's ever used an atomic bomb on people."

He looked at her, slightly puzzled, then mumbled, "Oh." Then he brightened. "But, like I said, we didn't start that one ...we finished it!"

"All the same ... " she muttered and pulled the stopper out of the basin. She watched the swirling vortex whirl down the drain. The sink sucked loudly as the last of the soapy water disappeared. With a faint but reassuring smile on his lips, he dried his hands on the dishtowel, folded it neatly in thirds, and threaded it through the handle of the stove.

He put his arm around her shoulders, and they walked into the living room. She watched him settle down in the new armchair and fold his hands across his stomach. She stood at the end table, idly riffling the pages of a magazine with her right hand.

"You know," she said finally, "we're less than ten miles from downtown."

"Huh?"

"We're sandwiched between the oil fields, naval base and a huge metropolitan area." "Yeah, so?"

"We're a target. It would hit us before we even knew it. Don't you ever wonder what you'd do.... what it would feel like ...really?"

"You mean what it would feel like? Yeah, I suppose . . . " He spoke hesitantly, his voice and eyes raised unison. "Well, no. I guess I haven't really wondered. A bit too morbid for my taste. But we have Civil Defense. We'd know ahead of time ... We'd be prepared." He shrugged his outstretched palms upwardly in a "you-know-what-I-mean" gesture.

She gazed over his head through the hazy, lace curtains, at the darkening sky. This view out her living room window was her favorite. Her sudden reverie was so deep that she was startled to hear his voice again. But it was his voice, the voice she loved, and she pulled herself back to hear him finish his sentence.

"...to worry about," he said. "What good does it do? You only scare yourself. Wondering what an atomic explosion feels like is like asking what it’s like to be dead. Who knows?”

She shrugged her shoulders and smiled slightly. Having won her tacit agreement, he continued enthusiastically. “I mean, one second you’re sitting here talking, and

©1985 T. McMullen

All Rights Reserved

A Plan for Iran and the Deal's Detractors

Here is the comment from and my answer to a Facebook friend who wrote about a satirical video featuring Jack Black and Morgan Freeman in support of the Iran Nuclear deal:

• I think celebrities endorsements are irresponsible. What do they know any more than any citizen of this country. We have to be mindful of with whom we are dealing. Iran wants the U.S. and Isreal wiped off the globe. The Iranian government will not be honorable and keep their word. For lack of diplomatic venues, we , the U.S. and Isreal , may need to settle this with force.

  
  
• 

  Tim McMullen Wow, look at those statements. "I think celebrities endorsements are irresponsible. What do they know any more than any citizen of this country." Yet, clearly, you think that you know more than they do. Did you actually watch the video? It uses satire with which each alarmist statement of the actor is met with a more reasoned response from a more knowledgeable person. 
  
  Secondly, you say, "We have to be mindful of with whom we are dealing. Iran wants the U.S. and Isreal (sic) wiped off the globe." So, not only do you know more than the "celebrities," but you can also read the minds of millions of Iranians. 
  
  Do you know anything about the history of Iran and the United States? We overthrew their democratically elected leader and imposed a ruthless tyrant, the Shah, and his family as a proxy government. He was a terrible dictator for decades. When he was finally deposed in a revolution, we sheltered him from the wrath of his people. The Islamic revolution that deposed him was the direct result of our corrupting their system, destroying their democracy, and opposing their revolution on both economic and religious grounds. We had scurrilous American military in positions of leadership suggest that we should wage a Christian Crusade against Islam. If they hate us, which so many in their country do not, they certainly have reasons. Their leaders, just like Netanyahu or right-wing politicians here, use the vilification of a particular country or countries (the "AXIS of EVIL") to rally support for all sorts of internal agendas that would otherwise go nowhere.
  
  You then say, "The Iranian government will not be honorable and keep their word." Hopefully, given the history just mentioned, you see the irony in that statement. So, not only do you know more than the celebrities and the diplomats and negotiators for the US the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, and China, who support this deal, you are clairvoyant and can actually predict the future with certainty. 
  
  The people making this argument about "untrustworthy Iran" are the exact same people who made this argument about Iraq, who claimed that they were "HIDING" WMDs, who led us into an illegal, useless, and costly war in which we lost thousands of American lives and injured hundreds of thousands of American soldiers; we destroyed hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of innocent Iraqi lives (in fact, every single Iraqi, even Saddam Hussein, brutal dictator that he was, was completely innocent of every lying accusation that the Cheney/Bush administration used to get us into that war, a war that had been planned by right wing think tanks for over a decade prior to 9/11).
  
  Finally, you say this: "For lack of diplomatic venues, we, the U.S. and Isreal , may need to settle this with force." Have you learned NOTHING from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq? Why on earth do you trust Netanyahu's overt political maneuvering, who has been consistently wrong in his predictions, rather than hundreds of diplomats, including 5 former ambassadors to Israel who believe that this is the much better approach? Besides, Netanyahu does not expect or plan to fight this war; he is doing everything that he can do goad the US into doing it for him.
  
  More importantly, you open that argument for war with this: "FOR LACK OF DIPLOMATIC VENUES"???
  These negotiations were worked on for a very long time; millions of hours of prep behind the scenes; they involved the world's superpowers, both those who are aligned with us and against us, as a way to resolve a very difficult issue. This WAS the "diplomatic venue" on a grand scale. 
  
  Those who oppose this deal, including the three main talking points of the TV commercial against it, have been claiming the same false things about this deal for many months, if not years, before they knew anything about it. The Republican Presidential candidates and legislators who have offered furious opposition, are stating the exact same false talking points months before they had read a single word of the agreement. My guess is that most of them have still not read it. 
  
  Part of the irony and stupidity of the naysayers' arguments is their parroting of Netanyahu—who only months ago was claiming that Iran was within months of having a nuclear bomb—and despite the fact that no one disputes the fact that this will absolutely prevent them from accomplishing that for at least ten years (ten years is an incredibly long time in this current world of international flux), Netanyahu and his Republican backers and hacks claim that this deal is worse than the status quo. It's ridiculous on its face if you actually listen to and think about their claims.
  
  Please consider actually reading this article by James Fallows in which he identifies those who are against and for the Iran nuclear agreement and articulates an analysis of the actual terms of the agreement. Then, if you want to argue on the merits of the agreement, please feel free.

  
  

  http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate-moves-on/399713/

American Sniper and the Fallacy of "They Fight to Keep Us Free"

• This piece is the conjoining of two comments from Facebook. The first is a response to an eloquent and important observation by the excellent singer-songwriter, Nathan Bell, who began his post with this statement: "Somewhat lost in the furor over American Sniper is the simple fact that almost every person in this country lets these wars continue without a second thought and just ignores the fact that it is the children of OTHER people dying and being mentally and physically maimed while they go shopping, go to movies, and carry on." He ended his statement with this observation: "We have another election cycle starting way too soon, and if we really want to fix the problems that movies like American Sniper bring out in the open we are going to have to vote out the militarists and the chicken hawks on both sides of the aisle."

  
  Here are my comments.
  

  
  

   We have been constantly at war for over 14 years in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, but it is nearly an invisible war. We hear nothing about the day to day efforts. We hear nothing about the casualties: nothing about our soldiers; nothing about their soldiers; nothing about innocent civilians being killed. Nothing about the trillions of dollars that we have poured into these immoral wars. We just hear about the "DEFICIT" and the need to cut social programs because of it.
  
  We have run literally thousands of air strikes and drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, and the data suggests that at least 1/10 and as many as 1/5 of those killed were civilians. We hear NOTHING about it. Furthermore, I am afraid that we have so bought into the immoral notion of "acceptable collateral damage" and the overt political demonization of "them," that we might not care even if we did know the truth about our ugly little wars.
  
  We ask both our military personnel and private mercenaries to do the bidding of those who profit from endless and pointless war, while we tacitly accept the fallacious fantasy that "our brave soldiers are fighting to KEEP US FREE!" Or, as that coward Lindsay Graham mewls, "So that we don't have to fight them here." Yet, the very people who promulgate the war—the politicians, pundits, and profiteers—while mouthing patriotic platitudes and verbal "support" for our veterans, actually slash many programs that are so necessary to serve the many needs of our veterans. 

  
  

  In line with the radical social and economic policies of Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and the many others who argue that the social safety net harms the people who need it, they gleefully send people into war, then, to those who have had their legs blown off, they say, "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." And the American People have not raised their voices against these vicious, self-serving hypocrites.
  
  We have become so partisan, so much of which is based on the most petty of pretenses, that the deep injustice and immorality of a profit-based invisible war may not even show up on the radar of the 2016 election. Since it is so intertwined with the "profits over people" philosophy, perhaps we can call it out and change it.
  

  
  Here is my review of "American Sniper" from another thread, and in response to the claim that they are "keeping us free."
  
  
  

  Anyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions that are not rooted in fact are merely ignorance and, in too many cases, dangerous. This "commenter" says, "...you have no idea what it takes for this country to maintain our freedoms," when he is talking about the war in IRAQ, an illegal and immoral war based on proven, incontrovertible LIES, a war that destabilized a country and radicalized a population and a region; at the same time, our cowardly response to an attack by 20 people lead us to sacrifice our basic principles of honor and integrity, free speech and individual privacy, while destroying our economy.
  
  I did see the movie, and it is well made. My guess is that Eastwood is actually a bit more subtle than the film's supporters suppose; in fact, I am fairly certain that most will miss the film's several deeper points. I have not read the book, but this film does not portray a shining hero (despite the accolades and moving portrayal of the real life individual in the epilogue); it portrays a very flawed man who is obsessed and deeply troubled. It depicts the powerful negative impact of war on the human psyche. The most moving part of the piece is a mother reading her son's last letter at his funeral (I don't want to give away who it is, but it is perhaps the most important statement in the film).
  
  Finally, whether he intended it or not, the heart of Eastwood's film is basically just a mano y mano battle between an Iraqi sniper and an American sniper. My question to anyone is this: If the American sniper is a hero for the number of kills he made of men, women and children, is the Iraqi sniper also a hero, perhaps a greater hero, because he was actually protecting his homeland and his family from an invading army? If not, why not?
  
  The major failure of the movie, and one that has been pointed out, is that it does not offer any historical context except a visceral reaction to the September 11, 2001, attacks. It makes the case for a man who wants to do his duty, serve his country, protect and save his comrades, but it never explores any justification of our actions in Iraq. Perhaps Eastwood expects his audience to have a sense of history; after all it was only 14 years ago. Unfortunately, this is the United States of Amnesia in which half of the country is still under the delusion that we attacked Iraq for two clear reasons, they had WMD's and they were responsible for 9/11. Both of those "reasons" were not merely "mistakes," they were KNOWING lies perpetrated on the American people, the Iraqi people, and the people of the world by many major figures in the Bush administration whose rapacious interest in Iraqi oil is well known. Without that context, heroism becomes a much easier fantasy to maintain.
  

Don't Let the Cons Con You into Decimating Social Security

We need to stand strong and united. The assaults on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are real, and they come from both sides of the aisle. The excuse for attacking these essential, social safety net programs is the "dreadful deficit," which, of course, was created from a budget SURPLUS and was the direct result of many errant policies.

Though some Democratic Representatives have endorsed a few of these policies, most are the direct result of Republican ideology and policy: unjustified military actions and unnecessary military spending (often on programs and equipment that the military has explicitly said that it does not want or need); huge tax decreases for the wealthiest corporations and individuals; unnecessary and unwarranted subsidies for some of the wealthiest industries; egregiously unfair tax loopholes—available only to the wealthy—that allow many of the wealthiest corporations and individuals to avoid warranted taxes; totally misguided and faulty deregulation of the financial sector that lead to several drastic economic downturns, especially the most recent "great recession"; the "no-strings-attached" economic bailout of those most directly responsible for the economic collapse which has left the worst actors in better shape than before their fraud-induced collapse while leaving most of the country still devastated by economic loss; a completely unrealistic cap on Social Security contributions; six years of political sabotage and stalemate from the minority party outspokenly intent on destroying any chance of significant job recovery or health care reform merely to gain political advantage; and very significantly, a cynical media assault on Social Security, Medicare, and government in general, designed to mislead several generations into believing that there will be nothing for them in the future, that they should abandon all interest in wider society, that privatizing everything gives them a better chance, and that they should care about nothing but their own interests, and, of course, by example, that lying, cheating, and stealing are simply necessary methods for success and that the rules limiting these methods should be loosened or eliminated.

The chained CPI, a method of conscientiously miscalculating downward the needs of retirees so as to significantly reduce their benefits in the future, is actually a drastic, negative change. Before Social Security is touched, before Medicare and Medicaid and a hundred other programs that have already been diminished by political blackmail, extortion, brinkmanship, and disingenuous compromise, we need to rebuild the middle class and our social safety programs by reversing all of the failed policies mentioned above. Only after we have raised the income threshold on Social Security; only after we have reduced our outrageous and unnecessary military spending, including bringing the "Big Brother" surveillance regime under control; only after re-regulating and better regulating the financial sector; only after significantly reducing tax loopholes and subsidies for the wealthiest should we even begin to consider cuts to social programs.

Should we attempt to eliminate fraud in social programs and tax policies? Absolutely. That naturally requires more regulation and regulators, not less as the Republican congress and media echo chamber have advocated and accomplished for many years. Furthermore, we need to bring real criminal charges against those who actually committed or condoned fraud and worse, offering jail time, not just pittance penalties—people have been out of work for years now as a result of this malfeasance, and these criminal corporations are asked to pay only a few days income in fines? There is real injustice here, but many of those in Congress have fought tooth and claw to prevent their financial backers from being held accountable, choosing instead to wreak havoc on women, children, the elderly, workers, immigrants, and the poor. If we all demand that they make other more fair and equitable changes before tampering with the few programs actually designed to benefit the common man, maybe they will listen.

I encourage you to sign the petition from Bernie Sanders whether it comes from Sen. Bernie Sanders, Alliance for Retired Americans, Campaign for America's Future, Campaign for Community Change, DailyKos, Democracy For America, The Other 98%, Progressives United, Social Security Works, USAction or any other organization or politician endorsing the protection of Social Security and Medicare.

"The Greatest Threat to Democracy is Hypocrisy! Seek Truth! Speak Truth!"
Tim McMullen

Through the Looking Glass—The Irrational Assault on America

You know, sometimes it really does feel like we are living in a Looking-Glass world. The frantic deregulation and merger frenzy of the last thirty years, stoked by the unfettered greed of banks, insurance companies, giant accounting firms, pharmaceuticals, media organizations, energy companies, and the Chamber of Commerce (to name but a few) nearly bankrupted this nation; the anti-tax policies and upward redistribution of wealth of the Bush years unquestionably brought on the greatest economic meltdown since the depression; colossal, criminal, corporate fraud and malfeasance have been exposed repeatedly, yet no real political or legal response has been forthcoming.

Instead, the "know-nothing" Tea Party swept politicians into power with the craziest campaign imaginable. Take all the things that nearly destroyed us—unfettered corporate greed, no public accountability for private or public corruption, an orchestrated attack against the regulation of criminal corporations, unlimited secret political spending by corporations wedded to an all-out assault on public and private unions and their political power—and reenergize each of these assaults on the middle-class ten-fold.

This illogical, delusional, self-destructive, Mad-Hatter Tea Party craze has now consumed the entire Republican’t party (as well as a few putative Democrazies) who are now clamoring and clambering over each other in a race to dismantle the last remaining shreds of the social, economic, and political safety nets of the diminishing pool of middle-income workers and the ever-increasing ocean of lower-income and unemployed workers.

Instead of attacking the obvious causes of our economic woes (including two illegal wars costing us over three billion dollars weekly), these elected representatives (read corporate political shills) and their deregulated media mouthpieces have mounted legislative campaigns to extend tax cuts and corporate subsidies for the wealthiest 1% while denying even minimal economic protections for workers; they are attempting to entirely eliminate funding for all public media, the only entities providing real, even-handed journalism in this country; they are attempting to severely curtail or destroy workers rights and protections with an unprecedented assault on collective bargaining; they have introduced a full-fledged campaign to decimate women’s rights by radically redefining rape, criminalizing miscarriages, allowing hospitals to refuse to save a woman’s life if doing so requires an abortion, and authorizing the legal murder of abortion providers; they have continued attacks on the rights of LGBT community; they continue their attempt to demonize immigrants and undocumented workers; and they have begun to decimate or eliminate environmental protections while legislatively denying scientific evidence and disallowing that evidence to affect our environmental policies.

The unimaginable harms of these initiatives, considered separately or collectively, is truly mind-boggling. As I learned from more than twenty-five years of collective bargaining, “once you give it up, you never get it back.” Just envision the havoc that any one of these proposals will wreak on our society, and then try to imagine what it would take to fix it once it is in place.

If we don’t get involved, NOW, in private conversations, in public demonstrations, in political campaigns; if we don’t immediately inform our elected representatives, both local and national, of our positions on these vital issues; if we don’t write our local newspapers and media outlets with rational, focused responses to the vitriolic distortion and lies of wacky political demagogues and crackpot pundits, the cause of democracy here and around the world will be setback for generations, perhaps many generations, to come.

“The Greatest Threat to Democracy is Hypocrisy! Seek Truth! Speak Truth!” Tim McMullen  

"Stranger Blues" Homage to Mark Spoelstra

My version of "Stranger Blues" was learned originally from the singing of Mark Spoelstra. This song opens with one of the finest blues lines of all time, "Ain't it hard to stumble when you ain't got no place to fall?" which was even appropriated by Bob Dylan for his "Outlaw Blues." Dylan may well have gotten this line from Spoelstra since they hung around and played the same New York venues, occasionally as a duet, when Dylan first came to New York.

One of the most striking things about Mark Spoelstra was his 12-string guitar playing. He didn't play like Leadbelly, nor like Pete Seeger who helped to poplularize Leadbelly's style, nor Erik Darling who had that great riff to open "Walk Right In" with the Rooftop singers, nor Jim (Roger) McGuinn in his folk nor his Byrd days, or Reverend Gary Davis's rockin' ragtime. There was a little bit of Blind Willie McTell, a little bit of Jessie Fuller, with quite a bit of Mississippi John Hurt thrown in, but Mark's drop-thumb blues and folk stylings were really not derivative; they were unique. It's important to note that although his style may have been similar to some of the old blues pickers, he developed his style and began his recording career before these old blues men had their revival at Newport and elsewhere.

To emphasize Spoelstra's acknowledged virtuosity as a guitar player, think about the other folk, blues, or topical singers of the era: Dylan, Paxton, Ochs, Sainte Marie, Tom Rush, Joan Baez. Mark Spoelstra included several instrumentals on each of his first four albums. This was relatively unheard of. Either you were a singer/songwriter (the aforementioned folkies) who could play, or you were an instrumentalist who occasionally sang (Danny Kalb, John Fahey, Sandy Bull, Leo Kottke, and a generation later, Michael Hedges). Only the great Canadian singer/songwriter, topical songwriter, and instrumentalist, Bruce Cockburn, a decade later, would approximate Spoelstra's mix of strikingly individualistic instrumentals and powerful songwriting.

My rendition is not a copy of Mark's version. I have never been disciplined enough, nor have I found it interesting enough, to try to learn someone else's songs verbatim. Heck, I don't even learn my own songs carefully enough to replicate them repeatedly. I know this may sound weird, but pretty much every performance for me is an improvisation. When I do someone else's song, I get the feel of the song, try to get a reasonable approximation of the chords, and then I arrange the song to suit me. In fact, this one was worked up as part of a classroom lecture that I gave to my American Studies High School Honors class—The entire 1993 performance can be found on my YouTube site.

I found the lyrics in one of the many folk song collections that I have accumulated over the years. Since I don't read music, I collected the books just because I had an avid interest in music and because I have the collector's disease (you can check with my wife about our house and our storage unit filled with the 6000 vinyl records; the 4000 CD's; the 2000 DVD's; the many thousands of reel to reel, cassette, beta, VHS, VHS-C, 8mm, Hi-8, SVHS, SVHS-C, Digital 8, and mini-DV tapes, and mp3's; not to mention the five thousand books, hundreds of pieces of art glass, novelty cartoon glasses, etc....).

So this arrangement was really just created by me reading the lyrics and vaguely recalling Mark's great version of the song. I had already performed this piece for several years before I went back and actually listened to his version.

The great thing about this new digital age is that so much that would have been lost can reemerge. Mark Spoelstra's first four albums, two on Folkways and two on Elektra, are available on Amazon, as is his final recording, Out of My Hands. I enjoy them all, but if you are interested enough to see what a truly committed conscientious objector who was also an extremely talented songwriter sounds like, I would encourage you to listen to Five and Twenty Questions, his first album for Elektra. It has his most fervent anti-war songs as well as one of his most compelling story songs, an epic tale of racism and poverty culled from his two years of alternative service as a conscientious objector. Another historical point, he refused induction and served alternative service in 1965 and 1966, several years before David Harris (Baez's husband) introduced "the resistance movement" encouraging people to turn in or burn their draft cards (I'll share my own resistance story some day).

But this post and this performance are dedicated to Mark Spoelstra, who deserves to be remembered for his musical and moral contributions to America and the world.

The Burning Bush (A Song of Praise for Unrepentant Arrogance)

The Burning Bush
by Tim McMullen

Started 2003, revised 2007

I have seen the burning Bush
Reflecting the light of God
He blazed away in the light of day
But the words seemed rather odd

('Cuz he said) "If I suspect in days to come
That you might wish me ill,
From my fear alone God does condone
My authority to kill…
You and anyone who looks like you
And your children's children's children if I could
Unto the tenth generation of them that hate me!"
And the Bush saw it was good,
Then he put on his white hood….

"Why, they deserve elimination
They are an abomination…
Abombination here, Abombination there,
Ah (I) bomb a nation everywhere.
Here a nation, there a nation,
Everywhere I bomb a nation!"

I have heard the Burning Bush
Pronouncing impending doom
For birds and bees and the forests for the trees
The earth one blooming tomb.
And science? It's an affront to God
Whose glory runs on gasoline.
"My buddy, God, he gives the nod
To scourge the land and pick it clean

"For they deserve elimination
They are an abomination…
Abombination here, Abombination there
Global domination everywhere
With "shocks and awes" on Nature's flaws
We lie and deny the polar thaws!"
Such hypocrisy must give us pause…

Yea, I have seen the burning Bush
Rejecting the light of God
He blazed away in the light of day
But the words were disturbingly odd
Destroying "Thy staff and Thy rod"
With reasoning fatally flawed
New blasphemies yet untrod
Such effronteries to God
While patriot preachers applaud
The apocalypse here and abroad
The result of slack-jawed fraud


Yeah, I have seen the burning Bush

©2007 Tim McMullen
All Rights Reserved