Vol. 1 No. 61 April 27, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Help Wanted
In any discussion about welfare, you'll hear the guy on the Right say people don't want to work and the guy on the Left argue the reasons for this are the miserable status (and pay) of the jobs themselves. I have to side with the guy on the Right. I can show you a position with more status than Donald Trump has hair along with a sizable paycheck to boot. Yet this plum of a job is going begging because no American has come up so far with anything except “Sorry.”
My source is a story in the Washington Post claiming the President of the United States is looking for a person with deep military background to be “a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies.”
Talk about status. Here's a chance to get on the phone and tell Condoleeza Rice her seams are crooked or Defense Chief Robert Gates he needs a shave. As a bonus, he or she gets the unique opportunity to steer the Bush ship of state into Baghdad harbor (figuratively, of course) and proclaim “Mission Accomplished” - again. Plus, with this powerhouse of a job comes instant access to the Oval Office, escorts, assistants, probably a gigantic desk near a window and the chance to put “czar” before your name.
So how come the response so far is similar to that of gulping a glass of warm cod liver oil? At least three -and as many as five – retired folks with four stars on their retired collars have politely declined the czardom. These include, beside Marine Gen. John Sheehan, such military luminaries as Army Gen. Jack Keane and Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston. The only one who has explained his position so far is General Sheehan, who used a typical Marine directness. “The very fundamental issue is, “ said General Sheehan, “they don't know where the hell they're going.”
This seems to be a logical reason to just say “no,” although in General Sheehan's case, it's also understandable why he wouldn't want to chuck a job as an executive at Bechtel Corporation exploring Middle East oil supplies to do the much the same thing in the name of national securrity. As for the other fellows, they could simply desire to spend more time with their families. But Sheehan's statement that the people currently in charge can't find their rear ends with both hands is pretty serious. Does this reflect on the Commander-in-Chief?
After the WMD's, the “link with Al Queda,” Hurricane Katrina, the conviction of Scooter Libby, (truth problems), the latest presidential show of support for World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz (girlfriend problems) and embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (competence problems) , this is a distinct possibility. The new strategy of trying to find yet another person to coordinate the Middle East madhouse seems a bit like overkill. We now have Defense Secretary Gates, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and General John Petraeus, all of whom are more or less in charge. I suppose this is why they need coordination.
At least we have some idea what the White House ad could look like: “WANTED: Excellent candidate with people skills to take over as czar of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Lots of experience required, including, but not limited to, complete loyalty to the President in dealing with opposing views. Ability to recognize absence of vision, cohesion or financial responsibility not required. Dealing with people in Washington who don't know where the hell they're going is a must. Submit resumes as soon as possible,”
Don't get me wrong- the execution of the wars needs help. Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, released his latest report on the lessons hopefully learned in a campaign that threatens to cost a trillion dollars or more. According to a story in the Washington Post, it detailed a series of mistakes, delays and missed opportunities. The words “mistakes, delays and missed opportunities” have been heard before, but the blame seems to have wandered all over the place. Maybe it's looking for a new place to land.
The current belated Help Wanted sign by the White House isn't getting any takers because it's gone up about four years too late. We should have asked the U.N. for more advice before diving into waters about which we had very little information, a lot of it being wrong. We've been swimming in these waters with an increasing number of nasty sharks since 2003, and it may be time to climb out and get dry.
Whoever the next person in charge may be, he or she is going to have one heck of a job. This mess isn't going to be solved in four years – or four decades. We're facing the longest term rescue effort in our history. Not only will the next Chief Executive have to figure out how to reduce our nine trillion national debt, but also how to rebuild the damaged reputation of what once was the hope of the democratic world.
The “Help Wanted” sign is hung over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and it doesn't mean we need a czar. Just a leader.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Trouble
Vol. 2, No.60 March 30,2007
The Bogus Economist
Trouble
We are in deep trouble. By “we,” I don't mean Americans or even Republicans, but the entire male sector of the human race. For us men, it's now just a matter of time. A recent report in the Environment and Toxology Journal about a Swedish experiment at the University of Uppsula should put fear in all our (male) hearts.
Frogs that started life as male tadpoles were changed into females by estrogen-like pollutants similar to those found in the environment, according to the report. “Pesticides and other industrial chemicals have the ability to act like estrogen in the body," environmental researcher Cecelia Berg said, "That is what inspired us to do the experiment," referring to her collaborator and lead author of the article, Irina Patterson, also a researcher at Uppsala. In one experiment, 95% of the male frogs became female and 100% in the other. Sure, they're just Swedish frogs, but the scientists added that since the number of frogs all over the world is shrinking rapidly, this could be due to an increasing absence of the male portion of the relationship worldwide.. No males; no frogs – at least so far.
One reason this report alarmed me was I had recently read of another series of experiments in which female ova were stimulated into producing offspring with no male participation whatever. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. These offspring were genetically identical to their mothers, a prospect, should the process be transportable to humans, we might all carefully ponder. Imagine a world where the girl you married was identical to your mother-in-law. Furthermore, so was your sister-in-law, your aunt and your cousin Matilda. Your wife was everywhere. It would be a different world. Imagine the letters to “Dear Abby.”
Of course, the cloning of females would relieve the frog problem since we could produce as many frogs as we needed. All would be female. So would all the world's dogs, leading to the retirement of the phrase “S.O.B.” There wouldn't be any. Spay and neuter clinics would fold since there wouldn't be any males to neuter and male-less females wouldn't need spaying.
Reading these reports made me consider the merits of a world full of females. With the exception of Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton, it seems most women are far less inclined to favor bombing people's lights out than are men. Certainly we can remember Margaret Thatcher, but we can remember Catherine the Great, too. Nobody's perfect. Nowadays, most women appear to be less violent than are men, with the exceptions of lady wrestlers, kickboxers and hockey players. Ladies also less often give the finger to fellow drivers when passed, which is natural since ladies have less testosterone. Frankly, I sometimes wonder about how much of this hormone some female drivers have after seeing a young thing do a three-lane change and cut off some old guy in a Pontiac before leaning on the horn to get the driver in front of her to move over.
I realize I'm getting off the topic of sex changes in frogs, but this is what happens when I get nervous. If pollution can cause otherwise male-type individuals to start developing female secondary sex characteristics, the impact on our current gender-obsessed society would be truly dramatic. Take restrooms. Instead of having only the prosaic “Men” and “Women,” they would have to add a third, perhaps marked “Undecided.” Eventually, of course, there would be just one variety. Sizes in unisex clothing would include “petites” and “misses” as well as Big and Tall - “One gender fits all.” The National Rifle Association would start pushing cute little .22 automatics as well as the bulkier .357 magnums. Many TV programs would get cancelled because watching a couple of men beat each other to a bloody pulp isn't as appealing to most women as, say, Antiques Road Show. And so on.
Admittedly, the Bogus Economist is straying far from his fields of expertise, which are sitting in comfortable chairs, reading good books and sampling various beverages, but this appears to be an emergency. If men are about to become a thing of the past due to industrial contamination of the environment, we'd best start preparing for it now. For one, I suggest stopping wars for awhile. Wars have a habit of killing lots and lots of men – as well as “collateral damage,” which can kill almost anybody. We need all the males we can get - and while we're at it, let's save the women and children, too.
Another measure I'd advocate is reversing the recent decision to remove Pluto from the list of planets. If they can take Pluto, what's to keep them from making off with Mars?
Of course, the best way to keep us males alive would be to stop the industrial giants of the world from poisoning us. Whereas up to now, the world's major corporations have paid lip service to toxic emissions that cause global warming, increase cancer rates among children and turn rivers into septic tanks, once it became clear it might cause extinction of the male species, you should see a turnaround like you wouldn't believe.
Plus, we'd save the frogs.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Trouble
We are in deep trouble. By “we,” I don't mean Americans or even Republicans, but the entire male sector of the human race. For us men, it's now just a matter of time. A recent report in the Environment and Toxology Journal about a Swedish experiment at the University of Uppsula should put fear in all our (male) hearts.
Frogs that started life as male tadpoles were changed into females by estrogen-like pollutants similar to those found in the environment, according to the report. “Pesticides and other industrial chemicals have the ability to act like estrogen in the body," environmental researcher Cecelia Berg said, "That is what inspired us to do the experiment," referring to her collaborator and lead author of the article, Irina Patterson, also a researcher at Uppsala. In one experiment, 95% of the male frogs became female and 100% in the other. Sure, they're just Swedish frogs, but the scientists added that since the number of frogs all over the world is shrinking rapidly, this could be due to an increasing absence of the male portion of the relationship worldwide.. No males; no frogs – at least so far.
One reason this report alarmed me was I had recently read of another series of experiments in which female ova were stimulated into producing offspring with no male participation whatever. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. These offspring were genetically identical to their mothers, a prospect, should the process be transportable to humans, we might all carefully ponder. Imagine a world where the girl you married was identical to your mother-in-law. Furthermore, so was your sister-in-law, your aunt and your cousin Matilda. Your wife was everywhere. It would be a different world. Imagine the letters to “Dear Abby.”
Of course, the cloning of females would relieve the frog problem since we could produce as many frogs as we needed. All would be female. So would all the world's dogs, leading to the retirement of the phrase “S.O.B.” There wouldn't be any. Spay and neuter clinics would fold since there wouldn't be any males to neuter and male-less females wouldn't need spaying.
Reading these reports made me consider the merits of a world full of females. With the exception of Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton, it seems most women are far less inclined to favor bombing people's lights out than are men. Certainly we can remember Margaret Thatcher, but we can remember Catherine the Great, too. Nobody's perfect. Nowadays, most women appear to be less violent than are men, with the exceptions of lady wrestlers, kickboxers and hockey players. Ladies also less often give the finger to fellow drivers when passed, which is natural since ladies have less testosterone. Frankly, I sometimes wonder about how much of this hormone some female drivers have after seeing a young thing do a three-lane change and cut off some old guy in a Pontiac before leaning on the horn to get the driver in front of her to move over.
I realize I'm getting off the topic of sex changes in frogs, but this is what happens when I get nervous. If pollution can cause otherwise male-type individuals to start developing female secondary sex characteristics, the impact on our current gender-obsessed society would be truly dramatic. Take restrooms. Instead of having only the prosaic “Men” and “Women,” they would have to add a third, perhaps marked “Undecided.” Eventually, of course, there would be just one variety. Sizes in unisex clothing would include “petites” and “misses” as well as Big and Tall - “One gender fits all.” The National Rifle Association would start pushing cute little .22 automatics as well as the bulkier .357 magnums. Many TV programs would get cancelled because watching a couple of men beat each other to a bloody pulp isn't as appealing to most women as, say, Antiques Road Show. And so on.
Admittedly, the Bogus Economist is straying far from his fields of expertise, which are sitting in comfortable chairs, reading good books and sampling various beverages, but this appears to be an emergency. If men are about to become a thing of the past due to industrial contamination of the environment, we'd best start preparing for it now. For one, I suggest stopping wars for awhile. Wars have a habit of killing lots and lots of men – as well as “collateral damage,” which can kill almost anybody. We need all the males we can get - and while we're at it, let's save the women and children, too.
Another measure I'd advocate is reversing the recent decision to remove Pluto from the list of planets. If they can take Pluto, what's to keep them from making off with Mars?
Of course, the best way to keep us males alive would be to stop the industrial giants of the world from poisoning us. Whereas up to now, the world's major corporations have paid lip service to toxic emissions that cause global warming, increase cancer rates among children and turn rivers into septic tanks, once it became clear it might cause extinction of the male species, you should see a turnaround like you wouldn't believe.
Plus, we'd save the frogs.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
