TURKEYS AND THANKSGIVING

Each year as Thanksgiving approaches, I think briefly about a time long ago on the farm where I grew up.  Part of our meager income came from raising turkeys.  No—we did not sell them live.  At a rather young age, I was required to assist my father and others in butchering turkeys in the period nearing Thanksgiving.  It was not a pleasant job, but many jobs on the farm weren’t either.  It was necessary with no possibility of opting out. The unpleasantness of seeing creatures being put to death was somewhat assuaged by nature of turkeys—not very loveable.  Yes, I know that Benjamin Franklin wanted the turkey to be the national bird because he considered it more noble than the eagle.  But we—my siblings and I-- found domestic turkeys to be stupid and hapless.  Our butchering operation was as humane as we could have made it.  I’m sure if today’s animal rights people could have observed us, they would not have found anything abusive.  We didn’t abuse animals—they were too valuable to us.

Then it was Thanksgiving Day—a religious time, a time of being thankful and a spiritual time; perhaps the only national holiday that isn’t commercialized.  The gathering of our stoical Scandinavian family, not given to expressing much sentiment, was nevertheless spiritual in our closeness to each other.  The turkey at the center of our dinner table was more than a tasty treat, it was symbolic of that hard work that we all--young and old—had done to make this feast possible.  I’ve often wondered if there had been no turkey would there have been a Thanksgiving dinner.  Probably not.

Recently, news of a major turkey producing company abusing its birds disturbed me.  Why does this happen?  Does being such a large operation take away the affinity for all life that we had on a much smaller scale on our farm?  Assuring ethical treatment of the turkeys could not have made a noticeable difference in this company’s bottom line.  Let’s hope that those wrong doings will be corrected.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

THE LAME DUCKS

A dictionary definition of lame duck is “one who can’t keep up with the flock.”  It paints a pathetic picture of an individual frantically flapping its wings but falling farther behind.  Hold that thought.

An early use of the term was in the British Stock Exchange in the 18^th century.  There it meant someone who was bankrupt or in default on his debts.  The term came into use in United States Congress in the mid 19^th century.  It denoted  “a broken down politician” according to Wickopedia.  So far, not a very complementary expression.

The current definition of lame duck, having appeared somewhere in the 20^th century, means a congressperson, governor or the president defeated in the general election but holding the office until the newly elected person takes over.  It also refers to the Congress as a whole, since that congress ends at the end of the year when a new congress, consisting of new members and carry-overs, will be installed.   One might expect the outgoing congresspersons to have less zeal for accomplishments than earlier; also the carry-over members might be complacent waiting for the new members to be on board.

The post-2012 general election exemplifies the lame duck situation well.  A large agenda of needed congressional action accumulated during the election campaigns.   Time is short, Congress works only three days a week and its activities will be interrupted by the holidays.  Severe gridlock in Congress makes rapid resolution (or possibly any resolution) unlikely.  Yet the “fiscal cliff” looms as a punishment for inaction.  We fear it will happen if Congress fails to act on such items as extending Bush era tax cuts, expiring tax breaks and the Sequester (the mandatory reduction of Government expenditures in the absence of a budget agreement).   The result will be less money in circulation—about $500 billion--come January first and the possibility of negative economic growth thus resulting in a new recession. 

I wonder how the wing-flapping ducks will treat the concern for avoiding the fiscal cliff.  Pundits suggest that there are three possibilities:  1)  Workable solutions will be agreed upon by December 31 and we will begin the new year with a growing economy,  2) There will be no action and we will really fall off the cliff and require a new period—maybe years—of economic recovery, or 3) A “band aid” solution which avoids the cliff, but resolves nothing and permits the bickering between parties and gridlock to continue, perhaps indefinitely.

The third outcome seems likely.  Makes me wonder if anything will ever change the super partisanship.  Tom Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum in their book, That Used to be Us, suggest a “shock therapy” caused by a viable third party as a means getting compromise between the warring factions.  Third parties don’t win the presidential elections and rarely win congressional seats.  But they can raise holy hell with the entrenched positions of the two parties.  (Read about Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party in 1912, the George Wallace campaign in 1968 and the Ross Perot campaign of 1992).  

Okay, so it’s a far-fetched solution, but I will try to remain optimistic that eventually thoughtful compromise will prevail and the ducks will fly!.