It all started innocently enough with my SPAM clock. That's right a SPAM clock. A clock made out of a SPAM can. Not one of the current cans that has a plastic cover around the can, no, mine is an old can where the design is imprinted on the aluminum. My friends Suzanne and Mike gave it to me, after I found out Mike had made some and I practically groveled to get one. Ok, I did grovel.
While discussing the marvels of my SPAM clock we began to wonder how the word SPAM, which had started out as processed meat, became a derogatory term.
According to "The Amazing SPAM Homepage" touting "Ah, SPAM, that most inspiring of foods, nectar of the Gods, hero of the picnic table", it is a type of canned, processed pork luncheon meat made by Hormel.
Hormel Spiced Ham, SPAM, does have a long and distinguished history. First marketed in 1937 as a "the Miracle Meat" it was the first canned meat that did not need to be refrigerated. During World War II it was used by the American military, and Nikita Kruschev credits SPAM with the survival of the Russian army during WWII. Americans also ate it during WWII because it was not rationed beef.
Ahhh, but that was then…this is now.
Although the word SPAM is a legal trademark, the word spam has a new connotation, generally meaning something unwanted. In today's world it's electronic junk mail.
The website "Promote Responsible Net Commerce: Fight Spam!" gave this definition:
"Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it."
That being the case, we are constantly bombarded with spam in all aspects of our lives, particularly political spam.
Bush Spam: "The economy is strong."
"The tax relief is working."
"I urge the Congress to make the tax cuts permanent.
"The tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free."
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."
"We're kicking ass." --George W. Bush, on the security situation in Iraq, to Australian Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, Sydney, Australia, Sept. 5, 2007
Senator Larry Craig Spam: "I am not gay."
"I have a wide stance."
"I am not gay."
Roger Clemens Spam: "I have never taken steroids or HGH."
"I think Andy has misheard. I think he misremembers." – Roger Clemens after being told that Andy Pettitte testified that Clemens told him he had used HGH.
29 GOP Senators & Congressmen: I am not seeking re-election. I want to spend more time with my family.
Federal Government Spam: "The check is in the mail."
Last month in "The Atlantic" magazine they had an article titled "Frankly."
It had a list of phrases that you might hear in Washington D.C. and what they really mean.
Potomac Spam: "Frankly……"
The following statement is false.
"I hope we can work together in a bipartisan way."
I need to pick off one senator from the other party to
pass this bill.
"War is my last choice."
The bombing begins in three weeks.
"I will continue to do the people's business."
I expect to be indicted.
So, when I asked Mike and Suzanne why an innocent name of a processed meat, "hero of the picnic table," had turned into a derogatory name for unwanted information, Suzanne said, "Because it's all @#&*!"
I think perhaps she's right.
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri's column, "Personal About Politics", published every week, will reflect on how the life of a 58 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. The articles will be posted to Politics.gather.com as part of Gather Essentials.
Cheri is a freelance writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children, one in Iowa and one at Columbia University, and is the proud grandmother of two. Cheri is also a purveyor of fine coffee, warm chatter and dry wit.
You can find all of Cheri's columns on Personal About Politics at www.ccabot.gather.com.


Comments: 46
Aesop for Today, February 13
Bush is SPAM - spiced HAM. But not funny ham.
Thanks.
Nice article, Cheri. But, does this mean that Suzanne no longer eats the lunchmeat?
I have heard from several people the Hawaiians love the stuff. Go figure.
Taxing the rich will bring in more tax dollars. NOT! Laffer curve says so.
Recinding the tax cuts and increasing the capital gains tax will create more tax revenue. NOT! Revenue will be lower but it will "feel good" sticking it to the "rich"
Universal healthcare, more money for education AND improving the economy. NOT! See Laffer curve again.
SPAM is good. Fry it up with some cheese on toast and it makes a great sandwhich. Or chopped up in scambled eggs.
P.S. Winston - you sound suspiciously like our pal, Fergie... Ever been to a house on Allen Ave???
Unfortunately, we must all own a little bit of the Spam that spews out of Washington D.C.
Nope, nope, and nope?
Allen Avenue? That in Eurasia?
Excellent work yet again Cheri!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Laffer curve is still taught in all major universities economics programs as a current revelant economic theory. Socialists don't like it, so they usually like to belittle it.
Remember repubs, just because you repeat a lie (that you prolly first heard from a talk radio vicodin addict) over and over does not make it true!
about the Laffer Curve, from the wikip:
> "Other economists have questioned the utility of the Laffer Curve. According to Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, "the "Laffer Curve" idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981."[^ Tobin, J. (Summer 1992). Voodoo Curse. Harvard International Review, 14, p10, 4p, 1bw.]"
Estimates of the effectiveness of the Laffer curve
In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates" that casts doubt on the idea that tax cuts ultimately improve the government's fiscal situation. Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, i.e., it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. The paper's author forecasts the effects using various assumptions (e.g., people's foresight, the mobility of capital, and the ways in which the federal government might make up for a lower percentage revenue). Even in the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lower tax revenue would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by his analysis.[6]
> "Socialists don't like it, so they usually like to belittle it."
DING! Wrong answer! You lose points! A common way of trying to deflect a truthful answer with obfuscation.
Sorry W, it's not socialists who don't like it, it's realists!, people, like myself, who have been investing in the stock market for almost 20 years now, and understand history and finance. Realists with a world view, a forward-looking view, realists who care about others less fortunate than themselves, realists who care about the direction their country is headed in, realists who care about people and aren't money-theists.
I'm sure your answer would be NO.
So then tell us why you think it's perfectly good business sense to support repubs who tell you it's good business sense to borrow money to pay down our national debt? You must think it's a good idea to saddle your kids and grandkids with an unpayable debt based on deficit borrowing?
That's simply insane thinking! No one in their right mind would ever even consider borrowing money to pay down their debt, that's why people are walking away from their upside down loans instead of borrowing more money to pay down their ballooning debt.
Ahhnald has done the same exact thing in my state, California. I wonder how many other states have governors who don't understand fiscal policies? But mostly, I wonder how there can be so many people who identify themselves as repubs AND think that they are being fiscally conservative? That's a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one.
Just take a second to stop and really think about it.
Bruce