The Ant & The Grasshopper

[emprworm]

The Ant & The Grasshopper

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

----- MODERN AMERICAN VERSION -----

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be that, in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Then a representative of the NAAGB (The national association of green bugs) shows up on Nightline and charges the ant with "green bias," and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of greenism. Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when he sings "It's not easy being green." Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS Evening News to tell a concerned Dan Rather that they will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the Reagan summers, or as Bill refers to it, the "Temperatures of the 80's."

Richard Gephardt exclaims in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share." Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act," Retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare moms who can only hear cases on Thursday's between 1:30pm and 3pm when there are not talk shows scheduled. The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV, which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, they are showing Bill Clinton standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "fairness" has dawned in America.

moral of the story:  Vote Republican

[EWS]

Nice story!!!  Quite fitting for todays world (and not just America, Britain as well - did you know that the government tried to ban hot cross buns!!!).  However, is this saying that you are a republican or are you saying that if you vote republican this is what happens!!

What are you?

[TMA_1]

so... all poor people are symbolized here by the grasshopper?

and how do the republicans help the poor??? lol

kinda one sided, but whats new.

[GUNWOUNDS]

hahah this is a nice story to contrast Edrico's red hen .

[TMA_1]

whoa, I have made it into gunwounds signature, I must mean a lot to him.lol ;)

[Dante]

Revised moral: Don't want to share? Be an autocrat.

Come to think of it, that's pretty similar to the last one...

[Caid Ivik]

Don't want to share? Don't produce. Those enough silly to work will have to share with you...

[SurlyPIG]

WOW...

Did you write that to be aggrevating, or are you genuinely that bigoted?

[Caid Ivik]

I don't know how to answer you, if that was pointed to me. Maybe some more common words for a Slovakian would be appreciated.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I don't know how to answer you, if that was pointed to me. Maybe some more common words for a Slovakian would be appreciated.

maybe he was talking to emprworm

[SurlyPIG]

I sure was.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I sure was.

i think people find it fun and refreshing to be politically incorrect sometimes.

its like running through freshly cut grass with no shoes on.

:)

[GUNWOUNDS]

whoa, I have made it into gunwounds signature, I must mean a lot to him.lol ;)

i liked the way you said it ...  its symbolic of how people hate to agree on things and most times would rather argue for the sake of arguing.

[GhostHunter]

Yes, it's everyone but you on that train...

[Wolf]

I think its interesting how people will go to such lengths to persecute others because they are "bigots", and that such perseuction they pursue is in the name of "tolerance". All the while, their beliefs are simply as intolerant and bigoted as the beliefs they profess to hate. An example of this would be Gene Roddenberry's view towards religion; the man was totally prejudiced aganinst all forms of religion and automatically assumed that anyone who was believing in it had had "their minds enslaved". Meanwhile, he proclaims that his view is the most tolerant and peaceful of all.

Back to the topic at hand. First, you cannot assume that all grasshoppers are in the snow because they did not work. Perhaps some are, perhaps some are not. You need to collect data to show this.

On the other hand, it's hard for me to take someone's views seriously when he constantly, and without fail, bashes down anything he disagrees with without heeding the spirit nor the tone of the author's post. I find it saddening when people do not simply ask questions to improve their knowledge of arguments that, while they disagree with them, they simply do not fully understand. Worst of all, I see this happen when people profess "tolerance" and "peace" and "equality". It is supremely disappointing. Emprworm has his opinions, and perhaps he would not act so insanely if we gave him the chance to slowly and coherently explain to us that which we do not fully understand that he wants to articulate. If we understand it, fine. Why, then, can't we simply be respectful towards each other in our disagreements? Why must it be sarcastic, condescending, or simply rude? I know that I am guilty of this, and I apologize -- there is no excuse for it. All I can say is that I will endeavour to do better in the future. Some of us have done better, it would be folly for me to say that everyone here is at fault, but, some of us are.

Until then, how can we talk about opposing a war when we can't even be respectful with each other? How can we talk about stopping terrorism and blind hate when we belittle each other? How can we talk about equality and tolerance while being obviously intolerant of each other? I do not know. Perhaps this is why some antiwar protestors failed in their efforts -- the war still happened, after all -- they were simply too insulting.

[Edric O]

I'm sorry, Wolfwiz, but if you knew Emprworm as well as we know him, you'd realize that any attempt to have an intelligent, rational conversation with him is doomed to fail. Not because he is incapable of it - on the contrary, I like to think Emprworm is an intelligent person - but because he chooses to use emotional speeches and childish rants instead of logical arguments.

Take this topic for example. Emprworm's first post could be summed up in one sentence: "All poor people are lazy bums, so they deserve to be poor and starve to death."

This is the same excuse used by the rich and powerful to oppress and exploit the poor during 5000 years of human history. It ignores reality and it has been proven to be wrong numerous times (since the biggest lazy bums are the rich themselves, and the vast majority of the poor are hard workers - they have to work hard in order to survive). But many well-off people still swallow the story of the "lazy poor", because it's easier to blame the unfortunate for their own condition rather than to accept that you might be partly responsible for their poverty.

And then there are people like Emprworm, who don't realize that they are being screwed by the same capitalist system responsible for forcing other people into poverty and unemployment.

[Edric O]

And, of course, notice that my "little red hen" story was written as a reply to precisely this kind of twisted capitalist fiction that Emprworm is trying to present as "reality" here.

The ant is the little red hen and the grasshopper represents the farm animals:

You have no doubt heard the story of "the little red hen". Some conservative pundit repeats it every so often. The story may be boiled down as follows. The little red hen is hungry and wants to bake herself a cake. She goes around to the other barnyard animals asking for help, which no one gives. Then when the time comes to enjoy the product of her own labor, everyone in the barnyard wants a piece. The conservative uses this tale to justify the deprivations of the poor - on the basis that they have "earned" their position through their laziness. The well-to-do on the other hand, have likewise "earned" their material prosperity through their own "hard work".

The moral lesson of the story is simple enough, and not really very debatable. The problem for the conservative is that it has very little to do with corporate capitalism. In fact, this very same fable can be used to turn the tables on conservative apologists for corporate capitalism. You see, the conservative makes important assumptions in the story that aren't valid.

Notice something really interesting about the story. Whose oven is it? Does it belong to the little red hen, or is it available to everyone in the barnyard? If anyone has access to it, it is a simple matter for any of the other animals to make their own cake. But if this barnyard is like the real world, not only do the other barnyard animals have no guaranteed access to the oven, they have no guaranteed access to the raw materials from which cakes are made. They couldn't make their own, if they wanted to.

Notice another possible assumption of the fable. Does everybody who helps in the enterprise get an equal share of the product of that enterprise? I don't think the conservatives are prepared to say that anyone who contributes to production of a finished product is entitled to an equal share of that product. That sounds like socialism - something I'm sure that conservatives didn't intend to assume in their fable.

Let's re-write the fable, and make it a little more accurate.

(read the rest here, if you haven't already)

[Edric O]

Or you could look at the story another way:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

- enter capitalism -

The grasshopper is a capitalist businessman. He owns the field in which the ant wishes to work. He tells the ant that he won't allow him to work in the field unless the ant builds a house and stores food for the grasshopper first. Having no choice, the ant accepts the deal. The grasshopper continues to dance and play, while the ant toils in the scorching heat to build him a house.

Come winter, the grasshopper's house is large and comfortable. But the ant's house isn't finished yet, because the ant didn't have the time (or the strength) to build another house after he finished the grasshopper's.

The grasshopper is warm and well fed. The ant has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

[Wolf]

Yes, I am beginning to think that all allegorical stories are engineered to support the point of view that they supposedly "prove". They make good points, but we must watch for where the author either makes certain assumptions, or engineers a specific situation in which his point of view is valid.

Furthermore, I apologize for my rant. It is frustrating to see people so quick to attack one-anther. On a side note, I have noticed that Emprworm is just as much a party to the quick attacks of others as other people are as well, thus, my post was more in-general than condemning anyone in specific. Hence, my not naming any names.

[Egeides]

Gunwounds: Do you believe that all poor people are grasshoppers and all rich people are ants?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yes, I am beginning to think that all allegorical stories are engineered to support the point of view that they supposedly "prove".

I agree with this 100% (especially Edrico's red hen story ... that story was engineered to death) ....

....Egeides.... not all poor people are grasshoppers.... but, anecdotically speaking, all the ones i know are grasshoppers

:-

[Egeides]

I wouldn't deny that seeing everything they do failing, many tend to just say "Oh whatta heck... it's not worth it so let's just use this sofa and TV".

But if they could get more (not simply money to consume more: I mean organization, a structure to get useful/productive, etc.), then it could change with time. Some of these programs already exist, but it doesn't mean they have lots of funds and it doesn't mean that it's really well funded and done... These times, unorganized ones just get even less than they had before so I think they will go even worst. Just look in a feudal system where even when they were freed, peasants wanted to coem back into the structure since they didn't know what to do, they were completely unorganized...

[alchemi2]

Nice tale as was red hen. engineered to support an arguement, obviously arent all. most surveys/polls are engineered the same way as are the results. no one presents arguements that undermind their opinion unless they know the arguement is flawed and can be easily shotdown or twisted to support their real intention.

Both writers are very good at doing this i've noticed but one is just more subtle at it. ;)

[Edric O]

I agree with this 100% (especially Edrico's red hen story ... that story was engineered to death) ....

My red hen story, in case you haven't noticed, was written specifically for the purpose of exposing the holes in the original red hen story (which was engineered by conservatives). It eventually grew into an allegorical fable about the history and development of capitalism. So it's actually meant to explain how capitalism functions, not to prove a certain point.

....Egeides.... not all poor people are grasshoppers.... but, anecdotically speaking, all the ones i know are grasshoppers

I hope you do realize that the poor people you know are less than 0.001% of the total number of poor people in America.

Nice tale as was red hen. engineered to support an arguement, obviously arent all. most surveys/polls are engineered the same way as are the results. no one presents arguements that undermind their opinion unless they know the arguement is flawed and can be easily shotdown or twisted to support their real intention.

Both writers are very good at doing this i've noticed but one is just more subtle at it. ;)

Well, of course all allegorical stories are engineered, although The Little Red Hen goes into a lot of detail precisely in order to show that it is a correct image of reality.

And I'm not the author of that story...

[GUNWOUNDS]

My red hen story, in case you haven't noticed, was written specifically for the purpose of exposing the holes in the original red hen story (which was engineered by conservatives). It eventually grew into an allegorical fable about the history and development of capitalism. So it's actually meant to explain how capitalism functions, not to prove a certain point.

yes i understand

I hope you do realize that the poor people you know are less than 0.001% of the total number of poor people in America.

yes once again i understand that... thats why i put it in italics... however, i must say that when the only personal experience one has is that of a particular type... it is hard for that person to pity the ones that arent of that type.... which he hasnt met yet or will never meet in his life-time.