Mr President, Save Our Twinkies

 

I remember my first Twinkie. I don't think it was very fresh (although I understand, with Twinkies, "freshness" is rather a marginal term). My first bite of a Twinkie was my last. I don't think anyone was around to eat the rest, either. I fear it ended up in the garbage.

There's something curious about a Twinkie. You put it in your mouth, you start chewing on it, if you can call that "chewing," ("assimilating," perhaps, is a better term) and you realize, almost immediately, that this Twinkie is not going to satisfy you. You know it's going to take more. You're going to need another Twinkie!

It's like smoking a cigarette or drinking a beer. Beer doesn't actually "quench" your thirst. It provokes it! Beer doesn't make you stop drinking; it encourages you to drink more! You smoke one cigarette, and somehow, the cigarette doesn't satisfy you. Oh, it creates a mood of well being for a moment, but then it's gone, gone, gone! You need another one. You become a slave to the habit, and soon, the habit becomes an addiction.

That's what I thought of when I took my first bite of a Twinkie. I thought to myself, I don't need this! I have enough addictions!

I never had another bite of a Twinkie. I've never even had the desire for another one.

Now, I am not a Twinkie virgin by the strictest definition, but in essence, to press the metaphor a little, you could call me a Twinkie "amateur," just as you might call another person, who has only dabbled in sex, a sexual "amateur." I didn't finish it. It was one bite, that's all. I don't ever want to eat another.

You see this trait in people who have had just a little sex in life; they have no desire because they don't recognize what they're missing. The first experience was clumsy and messy, and they don't want any more of it!

This explains how a perfectly edible Twinkie, concocted and baked by some 18,000 employees, went straight into the garbage. It was discarded like a whore, I'm just a little ashamed to say. And the price paid for it - I don't think I bought it - but that price went to waste. And soon, we may never see a fresh Twinkie again. (I realize, I might have misused "fresh" again here, but I think you see where I'm going.)

And yet, we're talking about much more than an addiction. The simple fact that we're not going to have them around anymore is such a tragedy all by itself. People! People! We will miss our Twinkies!

I say to our President, save our Twinkies!

I think one of the saddest things about Twinkies is that the term has been used to apply to a baseball team, namely, the Minnesota Twins. How clever, but oh, how rude! I'm a fan of the Twins! And I've even started calling them "Twinkies." "Are the Twinkies playing tonight?" my wife will ask. (Really what she's asking for is a foot rub. She lies on the couch and reads while I watch the Twinkies lose another game.)

Calling my beloved baseball team the "Twinkies" is a rude slap in the face, in my judgment, and yet, I find myself doing it just the same. It's like reaching for one more cigarette or another beer. I do it without thinking! I don't mean to slight the baseball team or the Twinkie brand; nor do I intend to slight the fact that 18,000 workers at Hostess will be laid off.

It's rude of me, and rude of us all! We need to do something.

It's time for our Twinkies to rise up and assert themselves. They can't let labor unions push them around anymore.

When GM had trouble, people noticed. When Chrysler had trouble, people noticed. When Toyota had trouble, when the banking industry had trouble, when the housing industry had trouble, people noticed. They realized it was an important thing, and now, the Twinkie is in trouble, and it seems like nobody cares!

It's so sad. There is a very serious side to all this! 18,000 workers might soon lose their good-paying union jobs and benefits. And other products, like Wonder Bread and various other Hostess foods are disappearing from the shelves. I haven't seen a loaf of Wonder Smart Bread for about a year! My wife and I used to look for it and buy it at its inflated price, and eat it, just to grow thinner! Sometimes there were only two loaves of it on the shelf, and we'd snatch them up!

Now we are growing fat again because Smart bread is not available, and we have to buy stupid plain bread! And yet, the signature product, the Twinkie, is the one we all remember.

Jobs are in jeopardy! The debacle at Hostess is not a complicated thing! It would be such a simple matter to keep the company going. We could just do what we've done in the past and will likely do again: Cut employees' pay! Eliminate their benefits! Start by firing 'em all! Dissolve the company temporarily, thereby allowing it to escape legal obligations to the greedy workers! Let the company rename itself. "Host," perhaps, would be an acceptable alternative. (They could name the new product "Twinkles.")

Then, hire 'em all back. If employees want to come back at a tiny fraction of their former wages, fine. If they won't tolerate working for slave wages, then hire somebody who will! We should be reaching out to the poor and destitute, the homeless, the penniless people in the streets, and offering them work! We have enough of them! Some of those people should be able to handle it! I mean, how complicated can it be to make those little balls of dough?

We don't need to give employees benefits either. Just let 'em eat the product! How many Twinkies/Twinkles can one worker eat in a day anyhow? It doesn't matter! It would be a small sacrifice.

So there's your solution. If the former workers don't want to make Twinkies for that kind of money, hire others who will. That's how you save a company.

Perhaps this is a hint of what's going to happen when we go over the fiscal cliff in about a month or two. I personally think saving Hostess would be good practice for what's coming next! Don't you?

It's obvious why nobody's lifting a finger, though, isn't it? We all know perfectly well that the Government could act, but as we are also aware, Hostess, (or "Host," as it soon may come to be known), with its measly 18,000 employees, is much too small to be considered a "small business" to the Redemopublicrats! If you're going to be a small business, worthy of consideration for financial resuscitation in this great country at a time like this, you need to be at least three or four times as big. THAT is what they call "SMALL"!

When the Redemopublicrats say they want to save "small business," they're not talking about small business! Are you kidding? They're talking about BIG small business!

Most American businesses do not quite measure up. Piddly little nickel and dime operations like Hostess rank with handy men working out of their garages! They mean little or nothing to the Redemopublicrats.

But, my God! We're talking about our Twinkies here, folks!

If he only had the political will, the President would fix this all by himself. You know he would. If he wanted to, he would intercede! He'd make them compromise, as he did GM and others.

So join me in raising our voices. Like I say, it's great practice for later! Twinkies, arise! Let's everyone appeal to the President and force him to step up to the plate!

Come on, Mr. President, show us how it's done! Do what you did for GM!

Ronald Reagan once told Gorbachev to tear down that wall. Now, at this pregnant moment, we appeal to you with the same sense of urgency:

MR. PRESIDENT! SAVE OUR TWINKIES!

Time to try Sandusky's Soul, or the Souls of Us All?

 

The Sandusky matter has been bothering me, not the Penn State thing exactly, but the way we've been going at it.

I need to tell you from the start, I don't mean to be unpatriotic. Patriotism means a great deal to me. I am in awe of our service men and women; I am proud of my uncle, Marine Lt. Col. John Skorich, who, as I understand, flew with the Black Sheep Squadron and served in Korea and later died in a plane crash. I was but a child then, but I felt my mother's loss at the death of her brother, whom she loved, and in whom she had placed such pride. I was then, and am to this day, proud of his swagger, his life style, his boldness. I wanted to be like him since I was a small boy. My appreciation and love for the man, and my pride still sends shivers through me.

I am also proud of all my uncles, cousins, and my many other relatives who served.

I didn't serve, but I assert my right to admire their dedication and to feel grateful, just as I'm grateful for all those who have endured these more recent years of conflict. Some who died were friends. Some were students. Some were sons of colleagues. It was different for them than for me, I know. And it's hard to speak of these things.

It tries my soul.

So what does the Sandusky matter have to do with them?

He is accused and convicted of being a sexual predator. He served as a coach, not as a member of the military. As a coach, within that small scope of duty, he served well. For years, however, he was also guilty of gross sexual misconduct.

Now a host of questions follow: Officials at Penn State, it appears, attempted to cover up a horrendous act. More importantly, they failed to stop the ongoing abuse as it occurred. Not just a few knew of the man's behavior. Although on a smaller scale, the scandal can be compared to the Catholic Church's concealment of similar types of abuse for generations, or to other injustices on even larger scales.

What do we want? We want to pry into it, of course. We want to understand exactly who is to blame. We want no doubts about it in the future. We want to make it clear that we will not tolerate similar behavior again.

But stand back a moment and examine this question: Why are we making such demands? Why are we totally immersed? Do we not see ourselves tightly focusing on the errors of a few people as we lay waste to the reputation of an entire educational institution? Is this any way to seek justice? Should we now dishonor, perhaps even deface, Penn State? Or has the negligence of Penn State's staff and administration already defaced that institution? Are we doing right, or are we behaving this way for reasons other than our desire for justice?

Why are we doing this? Do we behave so because we're all safe to pile blame on certain individuals, to remain innocent ourselves as we make accusations and demand that things be made "right" - whatever that may mean - money, I suppose, for the victims, punishment for the criminal? What do we want, anyway, and why do we feed as we do on it?

"These are the times that try men's souls."

Yes, Mr. Paine. Yes, they are. Oh, and we will try them all right: We'll make certain Sandusky sits in jail for the rest of his life. We'll get after Paterno too, dead man or not. We'll soil his achievements with this stuff and erase them from history. We will fire administrators, maybe even send some of them to jail. We will also make certain that Penn State University, the institution, pays dearly. We will try all their souls, and we will make certain the victims are honored and apologized to.

Take another step back now: A nation can do the same thing Penn State did, when you think of it. Think of it; don't look away:

An entire nation can deceive itself into misbehavior. A nation can overlook the mistakes of leaders when they act on its behalf. Some will want to pursue a thorough investigation into the matter, but many others will slam the door on it; they will say, "No, we cannot. That's unpatriotic!"

Of course, we're not talking about Penn State or Sandusky or Joe Paterno any more. We're talking about our country.

I heard some of you say it: "Stop right there!"

Yes, I heard it. I hear it all the time. Well, then, I have a great idea: Let's put both of these issues to rest, the error of Penn State and the error of our country.

No? Why not? Is the Penn State thing somehow worse?

Maybe it truly is.

Well, then. Shall we go farther into it and see? Maybe we'll find that these two issues are so entirely disconnected and so logically removed from each other that the one thing we would do is just fine after all, and the other thing is entirely wrong. A closer look should make things clear, don't you think?

Yes, yes. Patriotism. Already mentioned that. Sorry. I just thought maybe we could all "try [our] souls," the way Paine truly meant. He didn't intend for us merely to find a victim. He meant for us to try ourselves. That is patriotism, dear citizens. But it's pretty easy to try just one pervert and pry into the affairs of others who covered up sexual sensationalism, easier because we are not personally involved.

For just a moment, though, have courage. Be true patriots. Let's do the harder thing and try our own souls:

When we started a war as a nation based on so-called "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction ("WMD's," remember?) -

Oh that's different? Want to put that and the Sandusky thing behind us? No further investigations necessary?

Why do we behave this way? Is a sexual crime more egregious? Does all the dishonesty associated with it harm people in more significant ways?

Am I defacing the memory of my students and colleagues and friends and relatives who have served, or are we behaving like the administrators of a large institution who have already defaced a remarkably similar thing by their negligence?

Maybe stories of WMD's were somehow justified. Can we pry into that? Were those things an unintentional "miscalculation" on the part of our leadership? Were we all afraid?

Was Penn State afraid? Are they under attack? Did they get defensive and do wrong?

Did we, as a nation, do wrong, going to war because we "had targets"? Why did we do that? Is Penn State just another good "target"? Why are we doing this?

"These are the times that try men's souls." Are we up to the task, or is it dead in us?

Does this whole thing bother you too?