Capitalist Soup
by Tara Wood

A hunger pang deeply nags at my senses. I am tempted to submit to the calling of my pantry laden with macadamia nuts, chocolates, and truffles, but I pine for something more. I think to myself, "I deserve better than this!" With thirty dollars in my wallet, I am forced to choose between settling for takeout, (hardly a delicacy, I know) or dipping in to my account to buy a real meal. As I compare the gratification of service to my need for gourmet, it dawns on me: if it weren't for money, I would never have known I am such a connoisseur. In this realization, I had a brilliant vision of our ripe nation, and identified with my true hunger. Our society is like a restaurant, and we all crave Capitalist Soup.

It starts with an economic broth and to that we add a glob of government and the robust spice of corporation. Add a pinch of salt, the common consumer, and stir it all up with a spin-doctor. We hunger after capitalism. We wouldn't want something like socialism—God forbid we let production be owned by the workers rather than the privileged (some of us understand that the 'peasants' are incapable of self-regulation) —and personally, I encourage reaping the benefits at the expense of so-called ethics, because we simply can't cater to everyone's needs. Socialist Soup has a pervasive flavor; it's "ethical", set up so everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to earn a livable wage. In Capitalist Soup you find certain incomes below the poverty line and some far beyond, where we all want to be. Hey, I'm not the cook, but since there is a big bowl in front of me, I might as well gorge myself. It bothers my ulcer occasionally, but really, I don't feel bad about it at all.

Deception, oppression, and unfair advantages are all a part of the insatiable appetite innate in all who enjoy the savory pleasures of Capitalist Soup. It is really the idleness of the middle-class that prevents their success. They probably just need someone to read them the menu, which the media so eloquently provides us. I try to keep up on the latest, and I must say, my mouth waters for a taste of the enticement. It's safe to say that the media does cloud the broth a bit, so you have to learn to discriminate; a talent I have mastered.

Commoners just don't understand the preparation that goes in to these dishes. The Bush Administration is running the kitchen now, and some of their main courses I know from the chef's point of view. Let me show you what I mean: "Going it alone: self-defeating arrogance" (Duin)—I like to think of it as confidence; "Playing solo seems to suit Bush just fine" (Dowd)—I'd call him an independent thinker; "Bush: Diplomacy ends today" (Sanger and Hoge)—what does diplomacy mean, really? Ah, here we go: last week's Special was "A Big Win for Big Oil." It's delicious; trust me—like a rare steak, bloody juice running down your plate.

See, Saddam locked the U.S. out of his restaurant (so they've lost access to his secret spice) but he's been sharing recipes with France, Russia, and China; a successful kitchen conquest led by our side would make us (and Britain) "long-term beneficiaries" of the oil market (Vieth and Douglass). Too bad for Saddam's old cronies; looks like they'll be on the losing end. Now, this of course is hardly Bush's reason to occupy Iraq, but come on, we all know it's an appetizer. The real reason is that Iraqis are incapable of managing their own kitchen, so Bush has the right, no, the obligation, to spread democracy. Sacrificing a few thousand lives or so is worth the gain—and it's not for any of us to tell him how to do his job.

It's a sensitive subject for the "not so well-off" folks, but sometimes one group has to suffer for the benefit of another. For example, with the potential $368 million going toward the war in Iraq, Oregon could pay "7,090 elementary school teachers, buy 1,636 fire trucks, or place 58,963 children in Head Start" (Peirce). Chief economist Bill Cheney, says that nation-wide "job losses [are] so widespread that [he's] hard pressed to find any silver lining in this report." But I'm smart enough to think about the weapon factories and oil companies that will prosper! I'm doing fine because my family works hard for Halliburton.

If the American kitchen, an international restaurant, must sacrifice domestic needs, like social security, education, and Medicare for gastronomic expenditures, such as rebuilding other kitchens; as a citizen, I'm inclined to support them. Make an airplane sound with the spoon and I'll eat anything; it's my obligation, especially in these critical times. Remember, Milgram proved that humans follow authority, and why should we fight human nature? Common people try to "fight for what's right" and imagine a perfect world. Sorry, that's not on menu today folks. But without those consumers it would be a very bland pot of soup. Where would I get mine if they stopped eating on credit and picking up the bill for the kitchen? Because of them I can still afford dessert. I do get a little heartburn now and then, but nothing serious; really, I relish the Bush cuisine.

Since our head chef is obligated by the constitution to "establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, [and] promote the general Welfare," we can conclude one of two things. Either it is in America's best interests to be in a financial crisis for the time being, or it is morally just to sacrifice commonly held ethics. This reminds me: with enough votes from the United Nations culinary institute Bush said it would be morally right to invade Iraq, even though it is against international law because of the veto by France (Darris). Isn't this great? I don't have to abide by law when I know my actions are morally right—you can just taste the irony—it's almost as if it's moral to be immoral. Or rather, it's moral to be unethical. I wonder if he'd say it's ethical to follow laws? What is the difference between ethics and morals? I might need to go to culinary school to figure that one out, but I'm not going to worry about it for now—I'm hungry and eager for his latest recipe.

It's a richly catered main dish: Military à la King. Bush is a cook with a wealthy appetite and he spends generously. I admire a man with spending power. He has "the first federal budget with a deficit over $300 billion" (Sarasohn). And that doesn't include the $80 billion or so for the current endeavor. House Speaker Denny Hasstert "admitted that of course this was all going to affect domestic spending" and said the money has to come from somewhere. You see, Capitalist Soup with the sacrifice of Domestic Dinner. I love it!

If we are able to spread American principles around the world then who cares if teachers are denied raises, or students keep paying more for tuition. What's the problem with police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel receiving "slow and paltry federal assistance" (Peirce), and Medicaid dependants losing valuable coverage? I'd say nothing, so long as all of us don't suffer. That's why I join corporations and get all the big breaks. It's just a question of which pot you're dishing from. Now, one of the main ingredients for Capitalist Soup, as I mentioned before, is corporation spice.

Corporations are cleverly able to avoid taxes by making large campaign donations and writing them off, and then gaining a profit through tax rebates. They're as precious as saffron and a must for Capitalist soup. For example, Enron donated a total of $5,691,893 to the Democrat and Republican parties in the 1992-2002-election cycle, and they received $254,000,000 back! (Public Campaign). That's my kind of profit. Don't you wish you could make that much money? And hey, if our presidents are willing to take money from a corporation willing to bankrupt the majority of its employees, an unethical practice by common standards, I feel free to follow suit. It's like sweet and sour, hot and cold, rich and poor.

A "seasoned intergovernmental professional" (confused soup critic), suggested that our country is in "serious financial peril" and that terrorism isn't the only reason we are at this point. The direct result, he says, is from "blind and insensitive policy directions that our government—especially the Bush White House—is now pursuing" (Peirce). Is he insensitive, or a master businessman? I'm inclined to admire him for the latter. The unrefined middle class sees things so backwards. Now, I'm not saying that anyone is necessarily making a profit here, but I hear that the duct tape manufacturers were one of many large contributors to the Bush campaign. Good thing for them our Kitchen Security Plan calls for the wonder tape. That's what I call gourmet cooking.

I'd like to share more delicious tales about corporate monopoly and influence in the government's kitchen today, but my indigestion seems to be aggravating my ulcer, and my heartburn is nagging me; I'm happy though, really, I love this Capitalist Soup, and as long as I keep buying my antacids I can continue devouring my feast.

However, I can hear the opposition barking, "Not everyone sacrifices ethics to get rich!" Yeah, I suppose that's right, but I wonder what the advantage is to that. Morality Soup just doesn't give you the same sweet pleasure—know what I mean?

Nominated by James Bryant-Trerise, English Department