Senator William Bushton on the Iran Treaty, wealth distribution, and gun control

                               

 
                                   Another Interview with Senator (Bill) Bushton

       Here in our studio overlooking the Potomac, we are fortunate to have with us today Senator William Bushton who kindly consented to have, in his own words, a "down to earth Trump style" interview.  The Senator, as we all know, is running for President and has expressed hope that, through this interview, the voters will know where he stands on several complicated foreign and domestic  policies, now being considered by foggy bottom.  These policies, if enacted, will have far reaching affects on the Nation and on the American people.

     Shall we begin, Senator?  I see you're wearing a purple tie.  Is combining the color of the red and blue ties, that other candidates wore during the Republican Debates (in which you weren't invited, by the way), is your idea of making a symbolic statement? 

     I'm glad you caught that.  Yes, I am wearing a purple tie to show that I am neither in the red or blue faction that is tearing our great country apart.  You know, of course, that mixing the colors blue and red, you get purple.  This will show that I am not at the extreme nor liberal end of the spectrum of the conservative party.  I am running as an Independent.  That is the main reason I wasn't invited.  Nor will I waste any of the American people's precious time discussing about you know who.

     Are you referring to Donald Trump?

     I said I wasn't going to discuss that!

     Fair enough.  Let's get to the meat of the problems facing our nation.  What do you think about this treaty with Iran concerning their atomic program and it's military implications, and are you for it or against it?

     First, let me explain simply what the treaty basically is: it is a promissory note that the signer, Iran, will halt all activities in the making of atomic weapons.  In exchange they get their own money back that is presently tied up in foreign banks.  Also, nations will lift their embargo and begin trading with Iran, meaning we will be buying lots of their oil so we can store it underground for arm conflicts we will have with them in the future.  In exchange for the oil, they will get paper credits so they can use these credits to  arm themselves with the latest conventional  weapons so they can defend themselves against an enemy who would like to see Iran destroyed.

     You mean Israel and the United States.?

     No, no, not us.  I'm talking about ISIS.  They're the Hatfields to the Iranian McCoys.  We give them the means and let them duke it out among themselves.  It's a private family matter and we shouldn't interfere.  That is why I'm all for the treaty.  It's a win-win situation for our nation's  businessmen and weapons manufacturers.   We get lots of  their cheap oil while having set up, and arm, another foe against ISIS, and we kick the atomic can down the road for another ten years.  What can be better?

     But how can we trust them, even with inspections and drone monitoring, aren't they able to somehow get around that?

     You don't get it, do you?  Nobody who is anybody seriously gives a crap about wither they cheat or not.  And they probably won't.  It's not in their interest.  Them building an atomic weapon is only smokescreens, all that stuff about time tables, and inspection charts, I mean, stop, and think about it.  China have atomic bombs,  Israel have an unknown amount,  all the European nations have it, Russia's got hundreds, and even those really, REALLY crazy North Koreans have it... so why are we so concern if Iran have just one itty bitty bomb, or even several?  We've got thousands.  You think Iran is more dangerous than North Korea?  The only nation that is really concern is  the nation of Israel, and its leader, Netanyahu.  Old Ben is really concern, and so would I be, if I was sitting where he is.

     Why?

     Because if the treaty is signed, then the Jewish nation will suddenly be the potential sacrificial lamb, and  Old Ben knows it.

     In what way?

     Look, there's no way we have a legitimate excuse to go to war with Iran unless it attacks Israel. And the only way Iran will attack Israel is with an atomic weapon secretly bought from North Korea from the money we freed up.  This should practically wipe Israel out with the first attack.   It is a small country, after all.  They hate Israel.  Don't you see?  It's beyond politics, it's beyond reason, it's personal.  Any which way, Israel will get it first. 
     Of course, we will be enraged when it happens...and we will  definitely avenge them by blowing Iran off the map.  We will, also, have the bonus of having wiped out our paper debt for all that oil we bought from them.  Iran will be no more......but what good is that to Israel?  They'd be  completely wiped out from the first get go, hundreds of thousand will die, their properties render useless for ages from radiation poisoning.  In other words, in signing this treaty, we are gambling with Israel's lives and properties...not ours.  That is why Israel is frantically trying to halt the deal.  Old Ben want us to go to war with Iran, not sign a treaty. 
    
     You make it sound so simple, but let's move on.  If you're elected president, what would be your solution to the problem of inequality in the distribution of our nation's wealth.

     Would you accept the premise that the poor will always be with us?

     That is a cliche in poor taste, especially in a country as rich as ours.

     Cliché or not, we have reached a point in our society that we cannot afford NOT to have people living below the poverty line.  There is no problem with the distribution of wealth.  The country is rich because of rich people.  If we begin taxing rich people, like you are hinting, then we won't have rich people.  Who, then will donate huge amounts to save children in Africa from malaria?  Who will contribute to keeping Public Television alive?  Who will sponsor charities to help the homeless?  Who will buy U.S. treasury notes by the billions?  I mean, I could go on and on.....
     And what happens if you raise the living standards of the poor to that of the working middle class?  They would form more unions, and unions are mainly there to protect slackers. You get expanded government because government would have to hire more unemployed people because it's the only way they know how to distribute the wealth. 
     And if you think we have immigrant problems now, think of all those poor people who have now graduated to the middle class and don't want to work in the fields anymore.  Our agriculture will suffer.  We will have to import even more migrants because somebodies got to pick the tomatoes and harvest the grapes. You know, of course, most poor people don't vote, which is a blessing.  But the more they become  middle class, the more they would want to go to the polls because they think that is what is expected of them. 

     And what is wrong with that?

     Nothing, if they knew what they were doing.  Most of them don't know what they're voting for to begin with.  Poor people climbing up to the middle class doesn't mean they got smarter.  How many do you think really read the voting pamphlets detailing the propositions?  What really happens is that rich people will have to spend their hard earn cash on sound bites to make sure that people will vote intelligently: voting intelligently means to vote what is good for rich people so the country can stay rich and prosperous.  Luckily, poor people in the middle class can be swayed so easily with hate propaganda.  Hate is good.  You can get people riled up to your cause with just a sprinkle of hate.  Still. rich people are forced to spend a huge amount of money to make sure that the new middle class do the right thing.  Makes all those T.V. and cable people happy...and very rich.

     I hate to say this, senator, but, in all due respect, I don't think you have the least notion of  what you're talking about.

     I thought you said you wanted the truth?

     All right then, how do you feel about gun control?

     I always carry one.

    
    

    

    

    

An Essay on How to Cook for One

 

 

                                                   How to Cook for One

        I am a man who likes to eat.  No, really.  People think everyone likes to eat.  Not true.  What many people want is a tasting experience.  Meaning these people look for quality, not quantity.  Food presented to them must be fresh, crisp, oozing with tantalizing sauces, and color coordinated.   And it has to be in tiny portions: it shows that these people are not gluttons. 

        If you’re wondering, I do have a wife who cooks but she belongs to the category of people who wants a tasting experience.  She would decorate a string bean because it would otherwise be unpalatable.  She is, like many millions of wives in this country, liberated, health-oriented, and dieting.  She has been dieting forever and, by my calculations, should have disappeared into the ether years ago.  Since we are two people with two different eating habits, under the same roof, eating on the same kitchen table, at the same time, face to face, is it any wonder that we are always on the brink of divorce?

       So, she cooks her things and I cook mine, and we’ve been doing it for a long, long time.  Does that sound strange?  I bet it happens in a lot of households. 

       I use to eat anything edible and in large proportions.  If it’s tasteless, I would just add ketchup and sprinkle salt on it.  If it’s really tasteless, I will resort to MSG (It may cause heart palpitations, and that experience might scare you, but, contrary to popular belief, MSG isn't a threat to your health).  I usually end up with plastic plates to hold my food but in a pinch, paper will do.  Also, I didn't mind using plastic folks...but all that has changed. I've changed.  Not as drastic as to become one of those fine food aficionados.  Somewhere in the middle, I would say.

       Getting back to the subject of cooking for one and not knowing how, I was forced to eat at mom and pop restaurants, chain restaurants, elegant restaurants that couldn’t have been a chain…but were (they disguise them so well), pizza joints, and rib joints (that advertise baby back ribs, with young people in the background having a hilarious time munching on them).  I discovered, in due time, that restaurant meals will inevitably taste the same.  With the exception of a few taco stands, I began dreading to eat out.  Traveling salesmen will know what I mean.

       So, to improve my cooking for one, I went out and purchased a cookbook.  Then, in the normal course of my life, I ended up with seventeen of them, starting with the plaided red and white cover of a Betty Crocker Better Homes and Garden, and ending with Julia Child's “French Cooking".  They're all on the shelf in my library (I call it a library because it sounds so much better than a do-over closet off the main bedroom),

        Betty Crocker was the very first one I used when I wanted to cook for one. The meal  was a challenging slice of raw pot roast.  My wife was engorged with stifled laughter as I attempted to follow the recipe.  It was the worst cook book I have ever read.  It was written in a foreign language. Most of the recipes were for the feeding of an army of Vikings on a bivouac (5 lbs. of chuck roast, 3lbs. of carrots peeled and sliced, three whole onions, 3 lbs. of potatoes, etc., and separate instructions of how to mix the portions together so it looks edible).  I ratio the amount to a serving for one and, even after I followed the instructions to the letter, the meat turned out ugly,tough and pathetic.  Jesus, all I wanted to do is prepare a slice of raw meat for a dinner for one.  What's so difficult about that?

         But having difficulties with cookbooks didn’t stop me from purchasing more, all bound up in hard, colorful, very attractive covers.  They smelled like new cars, alluring to the touch, and begging to be used.  And the bookstores have them displayed on the table with that big, red, special reduced price stickers on the front covers.  It became irresistible.  Borders and Barns and Noble are masters of cookbook displays, and I have the cash register receipts to prove it.  

        I kept hoping, but I never found one that didn't require spices from the four corners of the earth, plus dried seaweed and five measuring spoons made of blue plastic.  Since I cannot find one, I will, instead, write my own.  So after years of experimentation in front of my Viking stove, I managed to write down my very own cookbook, with tried and true recipes, especially concocted for those who is still struggling to cook for one.  I followed the usual format and started off on the first page with:
.

                                        THINGS YOU NEED

        You need a microwave.  You need a good scale.  You need a large bowl.  You need a dull knife.  You need a dull knife so you won't cut yourself or stab your toes when you slip or drop the knife accidently, and you know you will, eventually.  You need the standard utensils unless you plan to go native and eat with your hands, which is okay except some people, like me, have really ugly hands.

        Speaking of eating with ones own hands, in the Middle Ages (around 1200-1500 AD) most of the people in Europe (peasant farmers) did eat with their hands and they ate from bowls made from a very hard bread indented in the middle like a bowl  It was very practical.  When you have finished with whatever food was in your hard bread bowl, you ate the bread and voila!   Absolutely no dishes to wash. 

       According to some historians, the main cooking was done in a large iron kettle that was kept constantly boiling day and night. Whatever edibles scrounged up by the peasants, small birds, minus the feathers, whole carrots, greens, wild rabbits, some alive, some dead (some dead maybe for a long, long time), very strange herbs, salt if available, was toss unceremoniously into that boiling cauldron.  Items were cooked into a stew-like substance which was then doled out to the waiting bowls made from this hard bread.  There doesn't seem to be any records of complaints when these bread bowls were used, so it must have been all good.  Or it could be that those medieval  peasants couldn’t read or write about how sometimes the bread bowls would break in the center, due to faulty bakers, and very hot food ends up in their laps.  

Tragically, there were no lawyers present, and incompetent bakers were allowed to thrive.    

       It was easy to see that these large medieval food kettle was very much like our own   refrigerator.  It is the center of the family’s activities and serves as the centerpiece of our daily communion with each other, and so forth, and so on.  Medieval peasants are in touch with each other by gathering around the huge pot to keep warm, while we modernist leave message and photos of loved ones magnetized on the fridge door.   Anyway, I don’t want to get started on that, so let us begin with the serious business of cooking for one……but I can see that, if you’ve come this far, your eyes must be really tired, and I apologize for that, so I’ll stop.   I'll just give you one of my recipe on:

                          How to Cook a Fruit Pie for One,

sometime in the future….thank you.