A recent TV interview of Sarah Palin got me to thinking about turkeys.
You probably saw the spot. She pardoned a Thanksgiving turkey at a slaughterhouse, and continued giving an interview while other "unpardoned" turkeys in full view behind her were losing their heads.
Surreal.
What is this pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey all about anyway?
Isn’t it just more evidence of the duplicity of our elected officials? They pardon a turkey for show but still eat turkey on Thanksgiving.
Just once I’d like to see a President or Governor pardon the turkey and then go home and eat veggie burgers.
How did this turkey pardoning tradition start?
Apparently, the National Turkey Federation first presented a Christmas turkey to Harry Truman in 1947. He didn’t pardon the bird, however. He talked about how good it would look on the dinner table.
Eisenhower, too, ate the birds that he was presented in his two terms.
When Kennedy received a Thanksgiving turkey in 1963, he didn’t mention pardoning it, he simply said "Let’s just keep him." Seems it was the press that claimed the bird had been "pardoned."
Ronald Reagan mentioned the word "pardon," but it was to deflect the press’s questions about pardoning Oliver North--saying that if the turkey wasn’t already headed to the petting farm, he would pardon it.
It seems the first president to actually pardon the gift turkey was George Bush in 1989. He proclaimed that he was officially giving the bird a "presidential pardon."
Unfortunately, the issuing of executive pardons for turkeys has been a grand presidential tradition ever since.
The pardon doesn’t mean much. Yes, the turkey gets the honor of riding in a Disney Thanksgiving Day parade, but because commercially raised turkeys get too big for their frames and have weakened immune systems, they seldom live more than a year after their reprieve.
So if you’re reading this, President-elect Obama, as one of your three hundred million
presidential advisors, I would urge you to please accept the gift turkey gracefully. Then send it off to the Disney parade, the petting zoo, or even the White House kitchen, but please dispense with the phony "pardon."
Enough already.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN PROMISEOBAMA’S CAMPAIGN PROMISE
Now that Barack Obama has won the Presidential election, it is important that we keep his feet to the fire and insist that he honor his campaign promises.
Of critical importance is the breed of puppy he will bring into the White House. It is right and proper that the press keep vigilant on that important issue.
Analysts agree that it is highly unlikely that a Pit Bull will be welcomed in the White House anytime soon, with or without lipstick. Any Alaskan puppy would probably create a negative reaction, even though it may be popular in its own state--in spite of its history of wrong-doing.
What about other breeds? Let’s consider some.
Since people are clamoring for change, a Scottish Terrier would seem to be out, since the Bush’s Miss Beazley and Barney are of that breed. Whatever breed he selects, it must reflect a change in direction.
In considering other breeds, then, would we want an Afghan Hound sleeping the in Lincoln Bedroom? I think not! The President-elect also needs to steer clear of breeds such as the Saluki, Azawakh or Sloughi with their odd names, and their Mid-Eastern, exotic, and possibly anti-American backgrounds.
Lyndon Johnson was too much a tax and spend liberal to make Beagles acceptable to a President with a moderate agenda, particularly since their dominant feature is their ears, which Johnson was wont to take a tug at.
A Mexican Xoloitzcuintli would give the wrong signal as well, though it would be fun to hear the pundits pronounce the name. To be acceptable, it would have to take on an English language name.
Obama could reach across the isle and adopt a Golden Retriever, like Gerald Ford’s dog, Liberty. He was a moderate Republican and maybe that would be taken as a positive gesture by other moderate Republicans.
Obama would certainly want to steer clear of a Checkers episode, with its reminders of Richard Nixon. Also, a black and white dog could spur a debate of whether it’s a black dog with white markings or a white dog with black markings, another unnecessary distraction.
With the tumbling economy, there are sure to be many homeless dogs all across this nation.
Maybe we should send them ALL to Washington.
Of critical importance is the breed of puppy he will bring into the White House. It is right and proper that the press keep vigilant on that important issue.
Analysts agree that it is highly unlikely that a Pit Bull will be welcomed in the White House anytime soon, with or without lipstick. Any Alaskan puppy would probably create a negative reaction, even though it may be popular in its own state--in spite of its history of wrong-doing.
What about other breeds? Let’s consider some.
Since people are clamoring for change, a Scottish Terrier would seem to be out, since the Bush’s Miss Beazley and Barney are of that breed. Whatever breed he selects, it must reflect a change in direction.
In considering other breeds, then, would we want an Afghan Hound sleeping the in Lincoln Bedroom? I think not! The President-elect also needs to steer clear of breeds such as the Saluki, Azawakh or Sloughi with their odd names, and their Mid-Eastern, exotic, and possibly anti-American backgrounds.
Lyndon Johnson was too much a tax and spend liberal to make Beagles acceptable to a President with a moderate agenda, particularly since their dominant feature is their ears, which Johnson was wont to take a tug at.
A Mexican Xoloitzcuintli would give the wrong signal as well, though it would be fun to hear the pundits pronounce the name. To be acceptable, it would have to take on an English language name.
Obama could reach across the isle and adopt a Golden Retriever, like Gerald Ford’s dog, Liberty. He was a moderate Republican and maybe that would be taken as a positive gesture by other moderate Republicans.
Obama would certainly want to steer clear of a Checkers episode, with its reminders of Richard Nixon. Also, a black and white dog could spur a debate of whether it’s a black dog with white markings or a white dog with black markings, another unnecessary distraction.
With the tumbling economy, there are sure to be many homeless dogs all across this nation.
Maybe we should send them ALL to Washington.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
John and Pete
Pete just couldn’t tell a joke.
The old one-liner "A termite walked into a pub and asked, ‘Where’s the bar tender?’" usually elicits a chuckle and a few groans.
Pete’s version went like this, "A termite walked into a pub and asked where the bar tender was."
It still got chuckles and groans, but people were laughing at Pete, not at the joke.
At times John McCain reminds me of Pete. He just can’t tell it right. He wants the joke to be on Obama, but the joke ends up being on him. His attacks are intended to wound Obama, but they are wounding John McCain instead.
Poor John is screwing up the punch line and everybody seems to know it but him.
There’s something wrong here.
I can’t be mad at John. I wish I could. I would rather be mad at him than sad for him.
You see, I identify with John. We’re about the same age, and I resent the fact that people say he is too old. I liked the self-depreciating John McCain who was able to comfortably laugh at himself, who was quick with a quip. That phone call at three AM doesn’t scare me, John is probably up then anyway, going to the bathroom.
Once I even thought that he was a maverick, a straight talker. When he spoke up against the Bush tax cuts I thought he really cared about the middle class. When he reached across the aisle to work on campaign finance reform, I appreciated the effort, if not the result.
When did his statements start backfiring on him? It wasn’t always that way. Did something happen to cause him to speak against his beliefs.
It happened to him once before.
Maybe John thinks he is in captivity again, spreading propaganda he doesn’t really believe, doing the bidding of his captors because he thinks not doing so would be committing career suicide.
Maybe he’s not so much like Pete after all.
The old one-liner "A termite walked into a pub and asked, ‘Where’s the bar tender?’" usually elicits a chuckle and a few groans.
Pete’s version went like this, "A termite walked into a pub and asked where the bar tender was."
It still got chuckles and groans, but people were laughing at Pete, not at the joke.
At times John McCain reminds me of Pete. He just can’t tell it right. He wants the joke to be on Obama, but the joke ends up being on him. His attacks are intended to wound Obama, but they are wounding John McCain instead.
Poor John is screwing up the punch line and everybody seems to know it but him.
There’s something wrong here.
I can’t be mad at John. I wish I could. I would rather be mad at him than sad for him.
You see, I identify with John. We’re about the same age, and I resent the fact that people say he is too old. I liked the self-depreciating John McCain who was able to comfortably laugh at himself, who was quick with a quip. That phone call at three AM doesn’t scare me, John is probably up then anyway, going to the bathroom.
Once I even thought that he was a maverick, a straight talker. When he spoke up against the Bush tax cuts I thought he really cared about the middle class. When he reached across the aisle to work on campaign finance reform, I appreciated the effort, if not the result.
When did his statements start backfiring on him? It wasn’t always that way. Did something happen to cause him to speak against his beliefs.
It happened to him once before.
Maybe John thinks he is in captivity again, spreading propaganda he doesn’t really believe, doing the bidding of his captors because he thinks not doing so would be committing career suicide.
Maybe he’s not so much like Pete after all.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Watch Those Suffixes!
I don’t mind an occasional suffix now and then, but man! . . . .am I ever tired of all the "-isms" and "-ists" that have been tossed around in this election!
You’ve got your ageism, sexism, racism. And then there’s liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism. You’ve got socialism, capitalism, communism, Marxism and fascism.
How about that terrorism!
And, of course, who can forget anti-Americanism!
-ism! -ism! -ism! The politicians have turned it into a terrible-sounding suffix.
They’ve made it sound threatening, like a bee flying into your ear. You feel like batting your hand against your head to get the damn thing out before it stings you.
And, yes, they’ve made the "ist" suffix sound equally bad, like the hissing of a snake. Isssssssssssssssssst!
Clearly, if politicians want to attack an opponent, they just need to hit him with some sort of an "-ist" word. He’s an elitist or a socialist, a Marxist or maybe a fascist.
Even knowing an "-ist" makes you an "-ist" by association. "Palling around with a terrorist" puts an "-ist" on you, too.
Doesn’t matter whether the charge is true, of even if the term is correctly applied--and it seldom is. Simply being called an "-ist" alone does the trick. It simply sounds bad, not something anybody would want to be. And once you’re labeled an "-ist" it’s hard to brush off.
(It’s a weird reversal. The person who is labeled is expected to refute the label. In all fairness, the person applying the label is the one who should have the serious explaining to do. Tossing labels around is a linguistic injustice that should not be tolerated!)
Whew!
Let’s all take a break and back off the "-ism" and "-ist" suffixes for a while. They amount to nothing more than name calling and don’t allow for the kind of debate that is crucial right now. It doesn’t do any good to label a policy as fascism or socialism. Those labels obscure more than they reveal. We need to understand the components of a policy, accept it or reject it on its merits, and not be distracted by the loaded label an opponent may want to apply to it.
Things aren’t going too well for the country right now. People need to communicate their ideas and philosophies with clear, plain language that foregoes the "ist" and "ism" words that do more to block communication than to enable it.
Come on, people; take it easy on the "-ist" and "-ism" suffixes!
You’ve got your ageism, sexism, racism. And then there’s liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism. You’ve got socialism, capitalism, communism, Marxism and fascism.
How about that terrorism!
And, of course, who can forget anti-Americanism!
-ism! -ism! -ism! The politicians have turned it into a terrible-sounding suffix.
They’ve made it sound threatening, like a bee flying into your ear. You feel like batting your hand against your head to get the damn thing out before it stings you.
And, yes, they’ve made the "ist" suffix sound equally bad, like the hissing of a snake. Isssssssssssssssssst!
Clearly, if politicians want to attack an opponent, they just need to hit him with some sort of an "-ist" word. He’s an elitist or a socialist, a Marxist or maybe a fascist.
Even knowing an "-ist" makes you an "-ist" by association. "Palling around with a terrorist" puts an "-ist" on you, too.
Doesn’t matter whether the charge is true, of even if the term is correctly applied--and it seldom is. Simply being called an "-ist" alone does the trick. It simply sounds bad, not something anybody would want to be. And once you’re labeled an "-ist" it’s hard to brush off.
(It’s a weird reversal. The person who is labeled is expected to refute the label. In all fairness, the person applying the label is the one who should have the serious explaining to do. Tossing labels around is a linguistic injustice that should not be tolerated!)
Whew!
Let’s all take a break and back off the "-ism" and "-ist" suffixes for a while. They amount to nothing more than name calling and don’t allow for the kind of debate that is crucial right now. It doesn’t do any good to label a policy as fascism or socialism. Those labels obscure more than they reveal. We need to understand the components of a policy, accept it or reject it on its merits, and not be distracted by the loaded label an opponent may want to apply to it.
Things aren’t going too well for the country right now. People need to communicate their ideas and philosophies with clear, plain language that foregoes the "ist" and "ism" words that do more to block communication than to enable it.
Come on, people; take it easy on the "-ist" and "-ism" suffixes!
Friday, October 24, 2008
What the . . . . .!
Man, this is confusing!
I thought I knew the meanings of words such as "anti-American," "terrorist," "liberal," "conservative," and "Marxist."
I thought I knew what racism was. I had a vague notion of what patriotism meant.
Turns out my dictionary is filled with words with incorrect meanings. I hate that.
Of course, I realize that words do change through time. "Silly" once meant "lucky, blessed." And, yes, when I’m crooning the tune, "Am I Blue?"(for those of us who still dig the hits of the thirties), I know meanings have changed when I get to the lines, "Was I gay, until today . . ."
In particular, when the Republicans are warbling their tunes, the words I thought I knew seem to have morphed into new meanings.
I had no idea that liberal and anti-American were synonyms. That wealth was virtue and poverty was indolence . . . government money that goes to corporations is stimulus and money that goes to the middle class is socialism.
It’s not just the words, however. My perception of reality seems to be out of whack too.
The sixth commandment applies to a woman and her doctor, but not to a President who invades a country.
The future is 1950. The millionaires are the stressed middle class. And the victims of hate speech are the Republican candidates who are the targets of racism . . . because they are white!
Damn, I think I stumbled into Klub Da Da!
I thought I knew the meanings of words such as "anti-American," "terrorist," "liberal," "conservative," and "Marxist."
I thought I knew what racism was. I had a vague notion of what patriotism meant.
Turns out my dictionary is filled with words with incorrect meanings. I hate that.
Of course, I realize that words do change through time. "Silly" once meant "lucky, blessed." And, yes, when I’m crooning the tune, "Am I Blue?"(for those of us who still dig the hits of the thirties), I know meanings have changed when I get to the lines, "Was I gay, until today . . ."
In particular, when the Republicans are warbling their tunes, the words I thought I knew seem to have morphed into new meanings.
I had no idea that liberal and anti-American were synonyms. That wealth was virtue and poverty was indolence . . . government money that goes to corporations is stimulus and money that goes to the middle class is socialism.
It’s not just the words, however. My perception of reality seems to be out of whack too.
The sixth commandment applies to a woman and her doctor, but not to a President who invades a country.
The future is 1950. The millionaires are the stressed middle class. And the victims of hate speech are the Republican candidates who are the targets of racism . . . because they are white!
Damn, I think I stumbled into Klub Da Da!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
A New Maverick in the Game
I’ve always loved mavericks, the woman or man who swims against the tide to boldly go where . . .
. . . well, to kinda buck the current a little even if it is unpopular. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin have caught my attention with their "maverick" claims.
True, John McCain joined with Russ Feingold to craft the McCain-Feingold Act. Trouble is, the same conservative activists who have signed on to his presidential campaign are also hard at work trying to undo his maverick legislation.
True, he was a maverick when Bush lowered taxes for the rich, saying it would put an undue burden on the middle class. Trouble is, he now wants to keep the cuts. Does that unmaverick him?
Maverick Sarah Palin, too, bucked the tide by changing her mind and not building a bridge but accepting the funding anyway. (I had a maverick builder do that to me once, accepting funding for insulation he never put into my house. "Maverick" wasn’t the name I called him, however.)
But now I have a new maverick to admire, one who took McCain and Palin’s maverick bids, called them, and raised them: Colin Powell!
Ol’ Colin Powell makes McCain and Palin look like they’re swimming "against the current" in the shallow end of the pool, splashing around like crazy but not going anywhere.
Powell, on the other hand, is swimming against the party that "elevated him" to the lofty position he holds. He’s swimming against the sharks who are now out for his blood.
Are you looking for a maverick? Look no further than Colin Powell.
I’m sure both McCain and Palin have deep admiration for their fellow maverick.
. . . well, to kinda buck the current a little even if it is unpopular. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin have caught my attention with their "maverick" claims.
True, John McCain joined with Russ Feingold to craft the McCain-Feingold Act. Trouble is, the same conservative activists who have signed on to his presidential campaign are also hard at work trying to undo his maverick legislation.
True, he was a maverick when Bush lowered taxes for the rich, saying it would put an undue burden on the middle class. Trouble is, he now wants to keep the cuts. Does that unmaverick him?
Maverick Sarah Palin, too, bucked the tide by changing her mind and not building a bridge but accepting the funding anyway. (I had a maverick builder do that to me once, accepting funding for insulation he never put into my house. "Maverick" wasn’t the name I called him, however.)
But now I have a new maverick to admire, one who took McCain and Palin’s maverick bids, called them, and raised them: Colin Powell!
Ol’ Colin Powell makes McCain and Palin look like they’re swimming "against the current" in the shallow end of the pool, splashing around like crazy but not going anywhere.
Powell, on the other hand, is swimming against the party that "elevated him" to the lofty position he holds. He’s swimming against the sharks who are now out for his blood.
Are you looking for a maverick? Look no further than Colin Powell.
I’m sure both McCain and Palin have deep admiration for their fellow maverick.
Global Economic Summit
In a fine show of executive action President Bush has invited the leaders of the international community to travel to the U.S. to participate in an important global economic summit.
American businesses are struggling right now, and anything our President can do to alleviate their pain is a noble act. Bringing in over two dozen leaders from around the world, along with their entourages, should give Washington hotels, restaurants, limo drivers and night clubs a much needed economical shot in the arm!
Yes, promoting a spike in tourism by getting all those international big wigs, with their big expense accounts, to come over here for a so-called summit is, indeed, a very shrewd move.
Kudos, Mr. President!
American businesses are struggling right now, and anything our President can do to alleviate their pain is a noble act. Bringing in over two dozen leaders from around the world, along with their entourages, should give Washington hotels, restaurants, limo drivers and night clubs a much needed economical shot in the arm!
Yes, promoting a spike in tourism by getting all those international big wigs, with their big expense accounts, to come over here for a so-called summit is, indeed, a very shrewd move.
Kudos, Mr. President!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
