It appears that officials will not allow free range chickens to roam on election day in Nevada. Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden has been ridiculed for her comment about how people used to barter for medical care. Critics have suggested that she was looking back fondly on the way “our grandparents would bring a chicken to the doctor.” Now, officials have banned chicken suits at polling places to stop critics from ridiculing Lowden.
Various activists have been campaigning against Lowden under the banner “Chickens for Checkups” and followed her with people in chicken outfits.
Washoe County Registrar of Voters Dan Burk banned the outfits as “inappropriate and obvious” advocacy in polling places. In fairness, most states do not allow open campaigning in polling places, though large chicken costumes have not been a common problem.
For the full story, click here.
Not my best poetic effort–still, Sue’s story begs for a little light verse!
A Chicken for A Checkup: A Poem about Sue Lowden
by Elaine M.
“Drat!”said the doctor.
“Drat!”said the nurse.
“Our healthcare problems keep getting worse!”
“Oy!” said the doctor.
“Oy!” said the nurse.
“Here comes that lady with a chicken in her purse!”
“A chicken for a checkup?
Sue’s a nincompoop!
Does she REALLY think that I’m C. Everett COOP???”
Elaine M:
My hats off to you for being so damned creative this early on a Monday morning – many thanks for the laugh!!!!
Has Palin endorsed her?
Sense of humour failure.
What a dreary and divisive place the USA has become.
Sadly, Big Bird can never be a senator, rep, nor president, not even dog/chicken catcher…Fowl Play!
Well done, Elaine. (applause)
I agree you Pete. The people that I think are jokes and way out actually will probably win. I am thinking about this lady and Brewer in Arizona. Rand Paul is way out too
. . . because some things one cannot unlearn.
Here’s an idea: The chickens just rides in the passenger seat of a vehicle while being driven around the streets adjoining the polling place waving, a CD of chicken sounds plays loudly (but not too loudly) through the card windows. Oh, and some of those nice magnetic signs on the doors with something catchy like, “CHICKEN.”
Buddha,
Only in ‘Merica and on L. Welk…I caint imagine how much they had to pay those folks to do that dayance, but I bet it wern’t chicken feed nor scratch…
Elaine M.
Very funny! Ms. Lowden’s name will go down in history – not in Texas, of course – but in our hearts and minds.
BTW, Ms. Lowden is one hot Chick…
FFLEO that was good.
Exactly how can they ban this? The chicken has been applied by both sides and as a matter of fact, the House member I worked for has a rubber chicken in his office. It was sent as a gag gift between the House, between members. Both D and R designations.
Now, we all know that Ms EM is one of the brightest gems amongst the fine crown jewels of Turley Blawg Ladies and that she shines with her *poeltry* verses; however, in fairness to Ms. Low-Den, the chickens was taken tae them cuntry doctors as barter (payment) for hisn’/hern’ services and *not* for the Chicken’s quarterly checkup or annual physical.
Ms. EM, I do not mean to suggest that you tried to mislead us with your verse but that Check-up allegation kinda stuck in my craw.
Furthermore, all doc’s know that an apple a day does not keep the doctor away, it’s all of that hawt chicken soup procured through bartering that was/is still the best medicine.
FF LEO
Not sure why my “check-up allegation” stuck in your craw. Are you crying “fowl” with the light verse I penned about this former beauty queen who believes in bartering with doctors for their services? That was my best attempt at “poeltry.” Ms. Lowden–as best I recall–never sed nuttin’ about no chicken soop…for the body or for the soul.
Regarding an “Apple” a day not keepin’ the doctor away–are you talking Macintosh?
Ms. EM,
I musta misred your verse…I was blinded by my Republican Party affiliation/loyalty and by the stunnin’ beauty of the candidate. Ya see, we Republican men tend to vote fer beauty v. brains as evidenced by another former beauty queen’s rising star–Ms. Sarah.
Doncha no, we Republicans is a’vid readers of the Grick Classics and we see Ms. Sarah n’ Ms. Sue n’ Ms. Bachman as the 3 Sirens what will lure all the men voters–the lot of ‘em is no better er brighter n’ them drunken, shipwrecked sailors of the story–away from Democrat candidates with their enchanting and seductive songs n’ lyrics like ya betcha whilst pluckin’ on them lute strangs n’ displayin’ a ‘bear’ shoulder ‘ n’ a wink.
However, I am still a bit confused as to where iDoc Rand Paul fits in this cunning, political strategy…
Paul is a certified Palin endorsed candidate. Mitch McConnell’s candidate was too liberal. There are quite a few men that Palin has endorsed. They have too be anti-gay, anti-choice and anti civil rights. The Palin candidate in Illinois Brady is for euthanasia of animals to help solve the state’s budget problems.
FF LEO–
Inspired by Ms. Lowden’s healthcare plan: Here are some new words to an old folk song for ya.
How Many Chickens?
This guy runs into an ex girlfriend, and asks how her family is. She replies “We’re having problems with Uncle Frank, he thinks he’s a chicken.” The man says “oh that’s to bad, have you taken him to a doctor?”
The woman says “we would, but we like the fresh eggs.”
What a lovely woman.
Truly…poultry in motion.
Barter transactions are taxable as income. If your doctor takes a chicken as payment, does he/she have to send an egg to the IRS?
Now see, without Ms. Sue’s inspiration, we would not have gotten all of these corny “jokes”, poems, nor would we have heard that jazzy, swingy, 1940s big band sound–a song I must admit that I have not heard before.
Truth be told, I bet Gyges, being a musician, probably has heard this song before.
Good one PaulT.
JsyS. Only if the egg is rotten or addled…like most IRS agents.
Thanks to PaulT for this thought.
And from Gonzo:
FFLEO,
Honestly, that was my second choice, but there seems to be a lack of Mingus’s “Eat that Chicken” on Youtube.
Just in case someone things Cab is a little too… pop.
Here’s Big Mama’s version of Little Red Rooster.
Excuse me:
“someone thinks Cab is a little too… pop:”
Man, you caint say anything nowadays without it going viral immediately.
Sue!, Sue, sue…
Seems to me she was referring to the past. And she was correct, people did bring things to the Dr. for payment.
If I were a doctor I might take chickens or 40 lbs of beef for an office visit. Or some good pies or beer. I wouldn’t have to buy it myself. I also need yard work done. Sounds good to me although I doubt they will take a chicken for an MRI.
The way the economy is going (and we can thank Harry Reid somewhat), that may be the only thing we can pay the doctor with. I suggest you order from this website to get ahead on your Rx money:
http://www.mcmurrayhatchery.com/index.html?aid=home&gclid=CNWKhZTa66ECFV195Qod51BVJQ
I predict the flim flam man will lose to Chicken Sue by at least 15 points, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow notwithstanding. At least she is willing to pay her debts, there is no dishonor in that.
Chicken Sue is ahead of her times and sees the writing on the wall. 4 years of congressional democrats have almost killed the goose so chickens are all that is left.
The Little Red Hen was a chicken to. She was also a good example of the free market. Hopefully Chicken Sue believes in the same tenants.
http://extension.usu.edu/aitc/lessons/pdf/little_hen.pdf
I know where these ideas are coming from and I am prepared to unmask the source:
Elaine M.,
An inspired verse … I do love it when these politicians get your creative genius going.
eniobob:
that was very good. Does he advise the Obama administration on economics?
Byron,:-))
Sreaking about costumes:
Catherine Ariemma, Georgia History Teacher, Let Students Wear Klan Outfits
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/24/catherine-ariemma-students-klan-outfits-video_n_588065.html
Now, officials have banned chicken suits at polling places to stop critics from ridiculing Lowden…
Someone is begging to be egged…
If you want to stop critics from ridiculing Lowden, you better shut her up.
Byron,
Like Sarah Palin and Gretchen Carlson–Sue Lowden has “beauty queen” brains. I know, I know…Carlson graduated with honors from Stanford and studied at Oxford. Still, it doesn’t prove she’s the brightest bulb on the string of Christmas lights. I’m not impressed with the gray matter or common sense of any of these women.
Sue Lowden is a ditz…in my book! I’ve been wondering what wall she’s been seeing the writing on. She believes in the “tenants” of chicken coops. I’m not sure what “tenets” she believes in though.
The Little Red Hen was not an example of the free market–she was an example of someone who reaped the rewards of her hard work. She didn’t sell her bread in the marketplace–she ate it fresh from the oven…after she sowed the seeds, watered the plants, picked the wheat, etc!
Elaine:
I don’t know what to think of Gretchen Carlson, I think the John Stewart piece might be right. Although she does seem a little off. I don’t know anything about “Chicken Sue” but I do find it funny.
The Little Red Hen definitely was a capitalist story, she got to eat all the bread she made. If it was a communist story she would have been forced to give over half the bread away, in our system she would be forced to give 30% away and would have had to follow EPA and FDA rules so the bread may not have even been made.
In a Fascist state the little red hen would have turned her bread into bombs and attacked the pigs
Elaine M rules the roost!
“Carlson graduated with honors from Stanford and studied at Oxford. Still, it doesn’t prove she’s the brightest bulb on the string of Christmas lights.”
*****************
Judging by her experience as a “cub” reporter here in Richmond, Gretchen appears more devious that a ditz. Fresh off her title, she “sash”ayed (forgive the pun!) into town to WRIC to work as a on-air reporter. The very married anchor man, Kevin McGraw, had a notorious alleged affair with our conservative credentialed young lass that resulted in Kevin’s wife coming to the station in a rage. Ol’ Kevin got sent to a 1000 watt’er in West Virginia, and Gretchen got kicked up to CBS and then Fox. Ah, family values in action.
Mespo:
is that true? So she just plays stupid, I was wondering. Some of the stuff she says has caused me to believe she is indeed a ditz. But then the John Stewart segment showed her playing the violin like a pro. Although I had a college girl friend who could play the violin well but she wasn’t very good at much else and had no intellectual curiosity at all.
I will have to relay that story to my wife, very funny but I can see her doing something like that to get ahead.
Byron:
It’s true. She was here in 1990-91.
Byron,
Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but doesn’t the whole story point to a failure of the free-market? The potential investors fail to recognize an opportunity for gaining wealth, and the only one with something to sell prices herself right out of the market (probably due to poor negotiating skills, she never actually states what the others would get in exchange for their labor). At the end we’re left with no exchange of goods or labor and no building of wealth.
Or alternately it’s an overly simplistic story meant to teach children the value of communal labor.
Byron,
I fail to see how The Little Red Hen is a story about the success of capitalism/the free market. The hen was not producing bread to sell. She labored to have food to eat–to sustain herself. She didn’t take her bread to market. She didn’t distribute any goods or products or reinvest any profits from her breadmaking endeavor. There were no profits.
Old tales such as The Little Red Hen issue from a time in the past–a time when societies were mostly agrarian…when people grew crops and raised animals for milk, meat, wool.
A tale that better fits the “chicken for a checkup” bartering system for medical services would be Rumpelstiltskin. The miller’s daughter couldn’t spin straw into gold–as her father said she could. She traded pieces of jewelry and finally her first born child to the “little man” in order to save her life.
P.S. I should have noted that the miller’s daughter SAID she’d give Rumpelstilskin her first born child–but she never did.
mespo,
Thanks for the “inside story” on Gretchen “family values” Carlson.
Elaine M.: great poem.
Byron: You can keep your “Little Red Hen.” I much prefer “The Little Mailman of Bayberry Lane,” which demonstrated what real values are. Not surprisingly, it is no longer in print, probably because of the socialism implied in neighbors working together.
Mike A:
I think the Little Red Hen also shows the value in working together and the benefits.
How is socialism implied in neighbors working together if they do it of free will and are not coerced?
The neighbors could form a cooperative or maybe even a collective.
Elaine/Gyges:
I read your response(s) after I responded to Mike Appleton. Good points.
But we don’t know the entire story. We assume she ate it herself because that is what the author says. But I have it on good authority from the horse that she actually sold half of her output to the pigs to buy grain for next year. She took 1/4 and put it into savings and used the remaining to sustain herself and her family until the next harvest.
The pig heard that she was going to buy an additional plot of land with the savings and had made a deal with the horse to plow the land. She anticipates doubling her output next season.
She certainly sounds like a capitalist to me
Byron–
I actually have one retelling of the old tale in front of me. The Little Red Hen ate the whole loaf of bread by herself. She didn’t sell a crumb of it.
Quoting from Paul Galdone’s retelling:
But the little red hen said,
“All by myself
I planted the wheat,
I tended the wheat,
I cut the wheat,
I took the wheat to the mill
to be ground into flour.
All by myself
I gathered the sticks,
I built the fire,
I mixed the cake.
And
all by myself
I am going to eat it!”
And so she did,
to the very last crumb.
After that,
whenever there was work to be done,
the little red hen had three very eager helpers.
The Helpers? A dog, a cat, and a mouse.
Byron,
Socialism is a tricky word, it’s easy to fall into the trap of equivocation. Not all socialism is the Third letter in USSR.
The thing speaks for itself . . .
Gyges:
We have socialism here in the US to a very large degree and have had for at least the last 50-70 years in one degree or another.
Public Schools, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all forms of welfare. What more is there? But the problem is that socialism is only sustainable to the extent that a free market is allowed to prosper. Even now we are running out of money because our private sector is winding down and tax revenues are decreasing.
If you want social programs you must have a vibrant private sector otherwise where does the money come from? If the fat capitalist has to pay 50, 60, 75% tax on all forms of income he quits working and investing and more importantly he doesn’t have the money to hire additional people or buy additional equipment.
Maybe I am missing something but it seems self evident to me. To have social programs you need capitalism’s ability to produce wealth. For whatever reason the current crop of democrats and to a lesser extent republicans don’t seem to understand that simple fact.
The Soviet Union was a burned out hulk by the 1930′s after less than 20 years of a workers paradise. It is a testament to the stupidity of our leaders in the 40′s, 50′s, 60′s and 70′s that it did not end sooner. They were always a paper tiger.
Why do you think China is allowing a free market? It will eventually be their undoing of the communist hold on that country but they are doing it because their way didn’t work and they want to be a super power.
You want to help people very noble, but you help them by having a prosperous private sector. It may not be perfect (and I know there are problems) but it does create wealth and not just for a select few. Granted there is great discrepancy from Bill Gates to the mother of 3 on a fixed income but if you distributed the wealth of the top 400 wealthiest individuals to the country at large the sum would be $5,200. Not a great deal of money. They are worth much more as wealth producers than they are as a one time meal.
But the problem (or virtue) of wealth production is that the person producing must be free to produce as the Soviet Union and other countries have shown us it doesn’t just happen by government fiat. And so the Chinese have embraced the free market for those reasons.
“The overall wealth of the 400 richest Americans is staggering. There are no multimillionaires on the list; a minimum of $1.3 billion being required to gain admittance, while the average net worth is $3.9 billion.”
From this article:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20852.htm
What I did was multiply 3.9 billion by 400 and then divide by 300,000,000 (approx. number of people in US so number might be plus/minus a few dollars).
Stick it to the rich by giving them an incentive to work harder to pay for the social programs. I believe you can do both. If the object is to really help the poor then you must have a flourishing private sector so that there will be money to spend. As the left is fond of saying Ronald Reagan was responsible for the biggest tax increase in the history of this country, I say amen brother and that is my point.
Byron–
Maybe we’d have more money in the US Treasury if we didn’t start preemptive wars. What do you think of the idea of imposing a war tax on the population to pay for the wars we wage?
Elaine:
I would be for it, if the country goes to war it should be worth the loss of life and treasure. I would have thought we would have learned that lesson in Vietnam. We should also have Social Security and the other social programs off limits to politicians and have pay as we go. If the money isn’t there the programs get cut. First at the government employee level then the state employee level and finally reducing benefits to the individuals as a last resort.
Imposing fiscal responsibility on government is a good idea.
Byron,
What exactly does that have to do with “How is socialism implied in neighbors working together if they do it of free will and are not coerced?” I was just pointing out that Equivocation is a hell of a drug.
One more time with feeling, “Not all socialism is the third letter in the USSR.”
Gyges:
I was asking Mike A that question.
Socialism “forces” people to pay taxes to take care of their neighbor. Putting a barn up or putting out a fire in your neighbors house is insurance for one thing and good neighborliness for another. But it in noway indebts you or your neighbor to each other and it is not compelled by force of government.
Farmers coops are another example of pooling resources to benefit a community. The operative word is free association.
Byron,
ONE type of socialism does that.
I say “‘Liberated Brother’ is great jazz.”
You say “How is that jazz, there’s no swing?”
While some jazz is famously swung, there are a wide variety of jazz sub-genres and grooves that don’t swing.
While some socialism famously involves the government ownership of the means of production, worker ownership is also included.
Mike was pretty obviously referring to the broader definition, while you changed the conversation to a discussion of the second. That’s equivocation.
As a follow up, Horace Silver:
He’s got you there, B.
Gyges:
I am all for workers owning the means of production, but I don’t call that socialism I call it capitalism.
If the workers own the means of production they are by definition capitalists.
If the government compels workers to unite and own a factory and then helps them run it that is something else again.
I am all for free associations of people to unite in a common cause to take care of a neighborhood problem or even a national problem as long as it is not under compulsion of government. I don’t see how I am being equivocal.
You aren’t sort of pregnant and you have a fever or you don’t. There are degrees of fever but it is still a fever.
Buddha:
you all get me at one point or another, I am just a simple engineer and words are not my natural tools.
Byron,
O.k. so then you’re just wrong. Demonstrably.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
You’re for some types of socialism; it’s o.k. most people are. They just don’t like calling it socialism because of the success of certain propagandists in the U.S. culture. That’s fine, there’s lots of different words in the English language that overlap. It’s part of what makes the language so great.
I just want you to understand that various legitimate uses of “socialism” exist.
Gyges:
I don’t see how I am wrong. If the workers own a factory and share equally in the profits or at some predetermined scale based on whatever they think is fair that is their right to do so. If the government makes them do it I would be against it. If they choose to do it that is their right under freedom of association.
I am all for workers owning a factory as long as they come by it fairly and have not knocked off the previous owner as Marx suggests. Or having a government nationalize the factory and give it to the workers. That is wrong. Private property is private property.
So call me a free market socialist.
Byron:
“I am all for workers owning the means of production, but I don’t call that socialism I call it capitalism.”
***********************
Actually you are describing Free Market Socialism. It was the brain child of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who developed it under his philosophy of mutualism. Here’s more info about him:
http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/ip/proudhon.htm
Byron,
You just said the secret word.
Gyges/Mespo/Buddha:
How is it socialism if it is free market? I was just being ironic above when I said “free market socialism”.
Gyges:
there was no secret word in that episode
It’s chocolate.
It’s peanut butter.
It’s two great tastes that go great together.
Seriously, a blended economy. You know it’s not all “free markets or nothing”. Only market segments critical to the survival of civilization need be socialized – like health care. Everything else can operate by free market mechanisms, B.
Gyges,
If that’s your yardstick, you can proudly call me a Marxist. Otherwise? I’d never belong to a club that would have me as a member.
Byron,
I was really hoping I wouldn’t have to do this, but your definition of socialism, while accurate, is not the complete story. So here’s the rest of the story (as told by Mr. Webster):
Main entry socialism:
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Now nobody was using 3 and 2b is basically your limited definition of Socialism. But let’s look at 2a.
We’re given just one requirement for a system to be called socialism, it has to involve no private property. That means we could accurately call any number of religious communes socialist, none of which involve the government forcing people into them. Free Association. Now, that doesn’t cover Free Market Socialism, because such communes try and be as self sufficient as possible.
But what about The first definition? I’ll draw your attention to the first, and tenth words. “Any” means, that if the conditions set forth are met, the system is socialism. Easy enough. Now, here’s where it get’s interesting, “or.” Now if the sentence had been written “theories advocating collective, or governmental, ownership and administration” we’d have a clarification that in this case, collective ownership meant governmental ownership. Absent those two important commas, we’re offered a choice between two choices, if either of which is met, the system is socialism. Since one of those choices in governmental ownership and control, it stands to reason that the other choice MUST involve ownership and control by something other than the government. So, there are socialist systems that don’t involve the government, thus you could have something that is ‘collectively owned and operated’ that the members of the collective are freely associating, and sell the product on a free market. They’d be free market socialists.
It all depends on which definition you use. Mike, Mespo, and myself are using 1, you were using 2b. Everyone was right, but by trying to switch which use of the word was being discussed to better support your argument, you were committing the logical fallacy of Equivication.
Gyges:
I said there was nothing wrong with free associations, a group of individuals comprising a home owners association is a collective of sorts.
If I am a member of a commune the commune owns the means of production. The commune sets the rules and so therefor could be called a “government”. If the agreement is entered into freely and all own an equal share of the commune then I would not call it socialism per se but some sort of co-op. Where a group of individuals join forces to be able to multiply their individual efforts.
I would say that 1, 2a and 2b are for all practical purposes equivalent. So I don’t see how I am creating any logical fallacy.
A shade of gray is still gray. and a Rhode Island Red and a White Leghorn are still chickens even though one may lay brown eggs and one lay white.
They are socialists operating within a free market, they are not free market socialists. The term free market socialist is what I would call an anti-cocept.
“Observe the technique involved . . . . It consists of creating an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concepts—a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a “package-deal” of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a “package-deal” whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. This last is the essence of the trick.
Let me remind you that the purpose of a definition is to distinguish the things subsumed under a single concept from all other things in existence; and, therefore, their defining characteristic must always be that essential characteristic which distinguishes them from everything else.
So long as men use language, that is the way they will use it. There is no other way to communicate. And if a man accepts a term with a definition by non-essentials, his mind will substitute for it the essential characteristic of the objects he is trying to designate . . . . Thus the real meaning of the term will automatically replace the alleged meaning.”
Byron,
Let’s not forget how this started, you implied that socialism required government coercion.
You can claim that it is true, but only if you use particular use of the term, one that is different from the original use in this discussion. Switching from one definition of a word to another in mid debate because it aides your point is Equivocation.
You’re faced with two choices, you can ignore the logical fallacy, or you can simply say “I meant socialism in a different way then Mike A. did.” Either way, this discussion is getting more than a little boring, so I’m going to call it quits.