Vol. 2 No. 76 Nov. 23, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Turkey
The most fun assignment I ever had in an English class was given to me by a gifted high school teacher named Elizabeth Force. It was Thanksgiving, 1944, and we were asked to write a story about the holiday from the standpoint of the turkey.
I recall writing about Mrs. Turkey's advice to her son, Tom, on Thanksgiving Eve: “Tom, this country is built on what is called 'The American Dream.' For millions of living creatures, this means that if you apply yourself, follow the rules, work hard and plan for the future, you will succeed. For you, however, the American Dream means that if you eat a lot and put on weight, especially around the chest and legs, somebody will pick you up, decapitate you, stuff you with dressing and serve you on a big plate to people who have applied themselves, followed the rules, worked hard and planned for the future. Good luck.”
These are dark days indeed for turkeys. Millions of people have spent hours dreaming of slicing Tom into strips and using their digestive juices to turn him into calories, but Mrs. Force's assignment has steered me in a different direction. What would Tom, the Bogus, think?
If I were the turkey, I'd probably spend time before the axe fell musing on what might have been. For instance, had Ben Franklin been a little more persistent, I, rather than the eagle, might have become the national bird. After all, I was far more “American,” having been around from the start of the colonies and, besides, I don't eat carrion which in my mind would put me in the same class as vultures and buzzards, including the turkey buzzard (no relation). The only drawback to having me as America's fowl would be in the opening of the Colbert Report.
If the turkey were to be America's national bird, there probably would be a groundswell of debate on state birds as well. There would be a demand for individuality. Oregon's Western Meadowlark is O.K., but why have a bird that's also the avian symbol of Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming? How about being the innovative and inventive state we know Oregon to be? For a state bird, we could select the condor or the blue-footed booby, which would attract attention as well as tourists. Or how about the duck? If it's good enough for football, why not a whole state?
Consider how our menus might change. Since we don't serve bald eagles for Thanksgiving – and it's actually a crime to kill one – it would follow that serving a turkey (if it were the national bird) would be an act of disrespect. This means we'd have to find something else as a main dish for ravenous families. Condors and boobies are also protected species and the duck is a bird completely devoid of white meat. An ostrich has plenty of white meat, but the refrigerator isn't big enough for the leftovers. Ditto for the emu.
Other parts of the country would no doubt chime in with their own choices for Thanksgiving National Dish. Some of these potential suggestions can easily be discarded. Louisiana would probably vote for the crawdad, but the thought of one of these on a large plate, possibly holding a tiny sprig of parsley, is laughable. A Thanksgiving lobster doesn't cut it, ham has already been appropriated for Easter and carving up a buffalo is more of a chore than most of us would want. Beavers are inedible, even when made into beaverburgers. Pigeons are too small.
So how about a fish? The salmon is a logical choice. Picture a whole salmon, fresh off the grill, with orange or honey glaze, served with sweet potatoes and green vegetable. Is this something to be thankful for or not?
So let's get behind the Thanksgiving Salmon. We'll begin with a salmon television campaign, since this is plainly the best way to convince America to do something different. I suggest a Thanksgiving salmon debate, with representatives from each culinary school presenting recipes for the perfect way to cook the fish. By the time viewers find out all of them taste the same, we will have picked our next chief chef. Vote now, complain later.
Next, we should find a number of famous people, from different fields, to be videotaped smacking their lips over a King or a Coho. What being a champion wrestler or auto racer has to do with buying a fish is beside the point, but if it works for bathroom products, cosmetics and breakfast cereal, it should work for salmon.
Of course, this is all speculation. The salmon is not our national fish, the turkey is not our national bird and I am not a turkey, despite the opinions expressed in some of my mail. Folks are still going to sit around a table, carve up Tom (or Theresa), give thanks and get indigestion. After they eat, they'll split into two groups with one sitting in front of a large screen, drinking beer and watching people knock other people down, and the other in the next room talking about the people watching the large screen.
Me? I'm here – in the sandwich. Hear that, Mrs. Force?
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 75 Nov. 9, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Ring the Bell
Now that we've finished the prelims, America is getting ready for the main event. Each boxer is in his or her corner (all sixteen of them) and all are getting last-minute briefings from their handlers, complete with styptic pencils to stop the bleeding.
Yes, the sparring season is upon us, only a year before the fight. Candidates are pledging to abstain from personal attacks while putting horseshoes in their gloves. Did Willard (Mitt) Romney once defend abortion? Pow! Did Fred Thompson get free airplane rides from a drug dealer? Pow! Did Hillary waffle on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens? Pow! Tell me, Mr. Edwards, is how you style what's on top of your head more important than what's inside it? Too bad about those ears, Mr. Kucinich. Pow! Pow!
Surely there must be something better than this slugfest/auction we throw every four years. In the just-completed off-off-year eBuy, we still had bidding, but the stakes were lower – with the exceptions of the huge chunks of dough sucked up by Measures 49 and 50. To be honest, the way we select our leaders gives me gas. Take the presidential sweepstakes – please.
Our continuing farce of “debates” makes me wonder who could answer questions like, “Our health system in in bad shape. Give us the details of your plan to fix it. Oh, yes, you have 45 seconds left to reply.” Thinking the world's problems can be solved with one-minute answers is one of the world's problems. Assembling eight or twelve people behind nicely decorated podiums for an hour or so is a great way to trivialize the election and further contribute to the epidemic of bumper-sticker thinking that, to some extent, got us into our current political septic tank to begin with. By the way, I'd also like to hear from two or three candidates at a sitting instead of a bunch that looks like a well-dressed, out of shape softball team.
Before we start having primaries, it would be nice to find out – in depth – what each candidate proposes. I'd like to hear how much each of their programs is going to cost and where the money is going to come from to pay for it. I'd like to get an idea who the candidates think would contribute most to their cabinets. This is very hard to discover in the four or five sound bites each person gets in a “debate.”
How about candidates being accorded equality in terms of free air time on radio and television? After all, these are public airwaves. Maybe banning election ads under a minute to prevent 'bumper-sticker”-type arguments? No opinion polls published for a stated time before the elections? Each candidate given spending limits, campaigns to be either completely financed with public funds or taken from a pool donated by citizens or corporations for the advancement of democracy? Why not?
What are the chances of just two election dates – both of them national holidays – one for primaries and one for the general election? Or does it make more sense for each state to push to the front of the line in order to “make a difference?”
Once elected, shouldn't a president have to conduct open press conferences or better, have an open Q&A session weekly with Congress so that the public can see and hear what's going on?
For those who are rolling their eyes and thinking what an absolute dork is passing for a Bogus Economist, let me add that everything I mentioned is – in some form - already law in some countries. In France, the rules about commercials and campaign financing are already in place. The time between their first election and final one is two weeks. Here it's ten months. In several European countries, all political parties are allocated equal funds. They figure having the best government money can buy isn't such a hot idea. Here, we make a contest over who hustles the most dough.
On C-Span, you can watch the near-weekly encounter between the British Prime Minister and Parliament in the House of Commons. Questions from both sides are fired quickly and usually answered the same way. The P.M. has to display a knowledge of a large number of problems with backup facts and figures as well as names of those delegated to work on them. This takes brains. The Parliament is usually packed. In Congress, you could shoot a cannon with little fear of hurting anybody. Everybody's out raising money. On the other hand, I suppose it's good there aren't many questions being asked because there's nobody there to answer them. It's not a mark of genius to suspect some things in government need changing.
As we gear up for the championship bout, we might reflect on what improvements we can still make in time for 2008. Congress could pass campaign financing laws now. It could begin a process to force those holding broadcasting licenses to use the public airways for pubic information prior to elections. It could use moral persuasion to require the president to face the media on a regular basis. A few well-placed letters or e-mails would help. We fight fans deserve the best. Everyone to their corners.
O.K. Ring the bell.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Ring the Bell
Now that we've finished the prelims, America is getting ready for the main event. Each boxer is in his or her corner (all sixteen of them) and all are getting last-minute briefings from their handlers, complete with styptic pencils to stop the bleeding.
Yes, the sparring season is upon us, only a year before the fight. Candidates are pledging to abstain from personal attacks while putting horseshoes in their gloves. Did Willard (Mitt) Romney once defend abortion? Pow! Did Fred Thompson get free airplane rides from a drug dealer? Pow! Did Hillary waffle on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens? Pow! Tell me, Mr. Edwards, is how you style what's on top of your head more important than what's inside it? Too bad about those ears, Mr. Kucinich. Pow! Pow!
Surely there must be something better than this slugfest/auction we throw every four years. In the just-completed off-off-year eBuy, we still had bidding, but the stakes were lower – with the exceptions of the huge chunks of dough sucked up by Measures 49 and 50. To be honest, the way we select our leaders gives me gas. Take the presidential sweepstakes – please.
Our continuing farce of “debates” makes me wonder who could answer questions like, “Our health system in in bad shape. Give us the details of your plan to fix it. Oh, yes, you have 45 seconds left to reply.” Thinking the world's problems can be solved with one-minute answers is one of the world's problems. Assembling eight or twelve people behind nicely decorated podiums for an hour or so is a great way to trivialize the election and further contribute to the epidemic of bumper-sticker thinking that, to some extent, got us into our current political septic tank to begin with. By the way, I'd also like to hear from two or three candidates at a sitting instead of a bunch that looks like a well-dressed, out of shape softball team.
Before we start having primaries, it would be nice to find out – in depth – what each candidate proposes. I'd like to hear how much each of their programs is going to cost and where the money is going to come from to pay for it. I'd like to get an idea who the candidates think would contribute most to their cabinets. This is very hard to discover in the four or five sound bites each person gets in a “debate.”
How about candidates being accorded equality in terms of free air time on radio and television? After all, these are public airwaves. Maybe banning election ads under a minute to prevent 'bumper-sticker”-type arguments? No opinion polls published for a stated time before the elections? Each candidate given spending limits, campaigns to be either completely financed with public funds or taken from a pool donated by citizens or corporations for the advancement of democracy? Why not?
What are the chances of just two election dates – both of them national holidays – one for primaries and one for the general election? Or does it make more sense for each state to push to the front of the line in order to “make a difference?”
Once elected, shouldn't a president have to conduct open press conferences or better, have an open Q&A session weekly with Congress so that the public can see and hear what's going on?
For those who are rolling their eyes and thinking what an absolute dork is passing for a Bogus Economist, let me add that everything I mentioned is – in some form - already law in some countries. In France, the rules about commercials and campaign financing are already in place. The time between their first election and final one is two weeks. Here it's ten months. In several European countries, all political parties are allocated equal funds. They figure having the best government money can buy isn't such a hot idea. Here, we make a contest over who hustles the most dough.
On C-Span, you can watch the near-weekly encounter between the British Prime Minister and Parliament in the House of Commons. Questions from both sides are fired quickly and usually answered the same way. The P.M. has to display a knowledge of a large number of problems with backup facts and figures as well as names of those delegated to work on them. This takes brains. The Parliament is usually packed. In Congress, you could shoot a cannon with little fear of hurting anybody. Everybody's out raising money. On the other hand, I suppose it's good there aren't many questions being asked because there's nobody there to answer them. It's not a mark of genius to suspect some things in government need changing.
As we gear up for the championship bout, we might reflect on what improvements we can still make in time for 2008. Congress could pass campaign financing laws now. It could begin a process to force those holding broadcasting licenses to use the public airways for pubic information prior to elections. It could use moral persuasion to require the president to face the media on a regular basis. A few well-placed letters or e-mails would help. We fight fans deserve the best. Everyone to their corners.
O.K. Ring the bell.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
