A great parable disguised as a joke

I got this one in an email from a friend:

Mule Trading

Curtis & Leroy saw an ad in the Starkville Daily in Starkville, MS. and bought a mule for $100. The farmer agreed to deliver the mule the next day.

The next morning the farmer drove up and said,”Sorry, fellows, I have some bad news, the mule died last night.”

Curtis & Leroy replied,”Well, then just give us our money back.”

The farmer said,”Can’t do that. I went and spent it already.”

They said, “OK then, just bring us the dead mule.”

The farmer asked, “What in the world ya’ll gonna do with a dead mule?”

Curtis said, “We gonna raffle him off.”

The farmer said, “You can’t raffle off a dead mule!”

Leroy said, “We shore can! Heck, we don’t hafta tell nobody he’s dead!”

A couple of weeks later, the farmer ran into Curtis & Leroy at the Piggly Wiggly grocery store and asked “What’d you fellers ever do with that dead mule?”

They said,”We raffled him off like we said we wuz gonna do.”

Leroy said,”Shucks, we sold 500 tickets fer two dollars apiece and made a profit of $998.”

The farmer said,”My Lord, didn’t anyone complain?”

Curtis said, “Well, the feller who won got upset. So we gave him his two dollars back.”

Curtis and Leroy now work for the government.

They’re overseeing the Bailout & Stimulus Programs.

Limit all U.S. politicians to two Terms.

One in office
One in prison

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Mike Devx

    Our US Constitution and our particular form of government have often been referred to as an experiment.  The Founding Fathers got many things right.  But did they get *everything* right?  Probably not.
    I have decided that I am in favor of term limits.  How well has the lack of term limits worked out for us?  One argument against term limits is that it deprives our government of its wisest by artificially limiting their term of service.  The voters, after all, have the final say, and can vote those who are not wise out of office.
    But has it actually worked out that way?
    My amendment to enact term limits would:
    – Prohibit a member of the House of Representatives from running for the House if they have served at least twelve years in the House   (six terms)
    – Prohibit a member of the Senate from running for the Senate if they have served at least twelve years in the Senate (two terms)
    Note that anyone can serve 24 years by winning four terms to the House and two terms to the Senate.  That’s twenty four years service for the best, brightest, and wisest, among 300-plus million Americans.  The best of those can serve eight years as President as well.  The best can serve in the Cabinet prior to a run for President as well, if they wish.
    The Founding Fathers were extremely concerned by the fear of tyranny developing within the national government.  We now have a permanent political elite in Washington DC.  They pass laws that apply to the rest of us but specifically exempt themselves (and their cronies).  I think the safeguard that was imagined – that the voters would simply vote them out – has actually failed, in practice.  We need stronger safeguards.
    Perhaps such an amendment could even have a subsidiary clause preventing members of the House and Senate from becoming registered lobbyists (for special interests).
    In sum, it appears to me that a national government will always develop a privileged tyrannical elite when left unchecked, and our system of checks and balances does not prevent this.  We can document the manner in which it has happened to our country; but if the development of the tyrannical elite had not happened via those steps, it would still have happened via other steps.  Stronger safeguards are required; redress is necessary.  I’m coming out in favor of term limits.

  • Call me Lennie

    Even sillier stuff
    The old farmer was in a tizzy because someone had just stolen his favorite donkey, whose name was Nellie.  So when he sees the perpetrator on the road with his animal he’s like “Whoa, Nellie”
    So he confronts the man and says “That’s my donkey!!”
    And the perp says “This ain’t a donkey, it’s a burro”
    And the farmer like “Burro?  My ass!”
    And the perp says, “I don’t go in for that sort of thing.  I’m just a horse thief” 

    • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm


  • Spartacus

    A census worker assigned to cover a rural area found a small farm on his list and approached a farmhand working in the field.
    “Excuse me, sir, I’m from the Census Bureau, and…”
    The farmhand tiredly looked up at him and raised an eyebrow.
    Interpreting this to mean that he should start at the beginning, he said, “Well, sir, every ten years, the government has to find out how many people there are in this country, and so that’s why I’m here.”
    “You’re in the wrong place, mister.”
    “Er, why do you say that?”
    “I don’t know how many people there are in this country.”


    My old Swedish Grandfather, a dairy farmer in Minnestoa, told me a tale about mules. A farmer he knew had two mules in the back of his stake truck, and was hauling them somewhere, when he approached a low bridge under the Great Northern. As he drove under it, there was a mighty BOOM, followed immediatly by a huge jerk of the truck, and a splintering crash. The two mules jad refused to duck when going under the bridge. The boom was the mule’s heads hitting the bottom girder of the bridge, and the jerk and crash was them being driven through the tailgate of the stake truck.  Stubborn, stubborn, beasties.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    That is a good one, Book. But propaganda has often come in the form of oral stories passed on down the generations. That’s how one “propagates” generational knowledge and wisdom, through stories. Currently, however, the story is that America is bad and the Leftist utopia is good. Everyone knows about the story, even if some don’t agree with it. That is a sign of treason’s success.

  • Mike Devx

    Ymar, you say “Currently, however, the story is that America is bad and the Leftist utopia is good.” and I agree.   Conservatives and/or the GOP are not succeeding in pushing a competing narrative.  To this point, it’s just not working; an abysmal failure.
    I think the key is that there are a *lot* of “low information voters” out there who just aren’t paying attention.  They’re essentially uneducated, unsophisticated, and they don’t give a damn about it.  Or perhaps it might be fairer to simply call them ignorant (not stupid, but ignorant).  They will stick with the current narrative so long as they “sense” or “feel” that everything is going along perfectly fine.  And that’s where the severe mainstream media propaganda and bias plays in.  That continuous bias is exactly what creates the sense or feeling that everything’s just fine – for the low information voter.  Because that’s all those voters sense, is the general effect of the propaganda and the bias.
    So you have your committed 40% the left, and all you need to do is get another 11% in the middle, many of which are low-information voters, and you’ve got election after election in the bag.
    Maybe it actually *is* impossible to push a competing narrative to these voters when the mainstream media is aligned against that; when they are fully invested in pushing one party’s narrative.  Maybe there actually is nothing you can do to reach those voters; maybe they truly ARE out of reach.
    I am not that pessimistic – I think it *can* be done.  
    But I think the competing narrative would have to pushed in bold, innovative ways, surprising ways.  You’d have to find ways to inject the competing narrative into the entertainment culture itself, to reach these people.  I *am* pessimistic that that will be done, because conservatives have zero skill, zero preparation, and very little interest in fighting the culture war to reach these voters.  You won’t reach them with statements of principles on blogs or Fox News.  You won’t reach them with complex but correct arguments while your opponents smear you with deceit and lies (on the mainstream news).  Conservatives who are out there trying to win have to completely change their game and their presentation, but they won’t change it.

  • Mike Devx

    Here’s an article about this from American Thinker focusing on Ben Shapiro that explains it well.
    What I believe to be the key insight: Shapiro summarizes the situation best by pointing out that conservatives are making policy arguments while the left are making character arguments.
    More context from the article that I liked:
    Shapiro’s solution is to have conservative representatives go on the talk show circuit and speak out with gusto when it comes to their ideology.  They should be polite by thanking their hosts for the opportunity given, but then they should point out in no uncertain terms that since “I am a conservative and you are a liberal, we have two fundamentally different worldviews, and I just want to let the viewers know this.”
    Shapiro feels that conservatives never frame the debate and just assume that everyone knows that the media is biased.  […]
    For learning purposes, Shapiro wants conservatives to look at what Candy Crowley did to Mitt Romney in the second presidential debate last year.  “I would have reacted by saying, ‘Candy it is not your place to be fact-checking this debate, especially when you are wrong.  We all know that your sympathies lie with President Obama, and we all understand that.  However, it is still no justification for asserting yourself in this debate.’  Romney should have gone right at her and instead just took it.  He never punched back after the first debate.”

    I agree completely: Go right at them, in this way with pre-emptive guns blazing, with calm and total confidence.  But then, I’ve *always* thought we have to take the battle directly to them.  And if they protest, shrug your shoulders and say “Whatever.  Say what you will.  My statement stands.  Let’s proceed.”  Every single time, every single appearance, every single show.  Do not be complicit.