Baril Musings
Subscribe

BARIL MUSINGS

Obliterate or annihilate—which is better?

The choice between ignorance and irrelevance

Dan BarilSeptember 23, 2026 · Sosua
Illustration by Dan Baril · Click to enlarge

To me, obliteration sounds like blowing stuff up.

Annihilation, you’d simply disappear. No?

Moreover, if you already “completely and totally obliterated” that which bothers you about someone, how is further annihilation even possible and what could possibly be accomplished?

Could it be obliteration never happened or Iranian tenacity was grossly underestimated? Or, did Agent Orange discover the geopolitical equivalent of killing a dead horse and then threatening its ghost?

If Mark Carney has taught the global community anything, it is that alternatives exist and are worth pursuing—and that eventually, simply ignoring the blowhard is its own form of obliteration and annihilation.

My personal conclusion is the more absurd things become, the closer we must be approaching insanity’s demise. Media bans and unhinged UN addresses can only mean the end is near—but not near enough.

Let’s not celebrate just yet. Waiting in the wings are Vance, Hegseth and Rubio—the understudies who watched the entire disaster unfold and somehow concluded the problem was insufficient enthusiasm. They have learned, after all, that consequences don’t exist.

Sing along, everyone:

“In Springfield they’re eating the dogs…they’re eating the cats…they’re eating the pets of the people that live there!”

The leader of the free world, ladies and gentlemen.

God help us. 🤦

THE CONVERSATION

What do you think?

When political rhetoric grows more extreme, what response do you think is most effective?

Leave a comment

Your name and comment will be public when published. Returning commenters and confirmed subscribers can post automatically; other comments are reviewed by Dan. Please keep the conversation respectful and avoid sharing private information.

Illustration for Obliterate or annihilate—which is better?