"Beauty and brains do not often go together;" I am, however the exception, I have neither
as I will now demonstrate. I am really unhappy with the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) for attacking
fishing. By now you have seen the TV commercial where they show two babies, one
going to a household that subscribes to 'Fishing Magazines.' And the other baby going
to one that subscribes to the WSJ.
Next you are shown how the former guy still lives with his parents, and the latter is
a big success on the stock market. So what are we supposed to think? How would
they like it if I put a big ad on TV advising all fishermen to stop buying the WSJ?
Shouldn't be a problem, they don't think we can read anyhow. If we could, we would
give up fishing and buy their tabloid.
Now I am not against taking on them, no sir. It would be great advertising 'tho. But,
should I do this? List all the names of the guys from their publication who are registered
on FAOL. You know, those who read FAOL on a regular weekly basis from the main
office of the WSJ! Think I can't? We have tracking programs that can tell me
where you bought your PC and what color socks you were wearing at the time. This is
war and I'm up for it. I can tell you which desk these guys sit at when they read us. Mostly
the data shows it's Monday mornings, usually before they attend the perfunctory 'Monday
Morning Song Fest.' You know how it is in the great halls of wisdom, daily brush-fires to
extinguish, meetings, more fires, more meetings, business lunch, more meetings, and more
brush fires. It is not surprising so many of the WSJ guys read FAOL! They can dream, right?
Now let's look at another element of the blatantly bias batch of, of . . . well, you know
what I mean, the guy who lives with his parents. Chances are he probably still remembers
their names, both of them. Doubtful the other guy remembers where his live, let alone if they
had names. The first guy undoubtedly has a fine 8 to 5 job, lives at home and looks after his
folks. He may still fish with his dad, bring home some fish and enjoy a family meal once in
a while. He will get the house when they pass on and continue to work, probably do some
guiding, a few lectures, teach some kids how to fish, write a book or two (by now he has
mastered the elusive art of literacy) and retire from the world just a poor hapless slob, of
no particular value by the misguided, modern, Madison Avenue WSJ values (or lack thereof).
No one will miss him other than the few fishermen he happened to acquaint himself with
over his measly 79 paltry years.
How about our big WSJ success? Hey he is happy, delirious in fact. Rolling in bucks and
enjoying the fast track. For recreation he has others do it for him. Like playing 'Power-Lunch'
golf. Great sport, make big deals while having some underling haul your clubs around, or
drive your little golfing buggy for you while you 'deal.' (There was a book, 'The Art of the
Deal,' remember? I don't think he fishes either.) Oh well, that's another column.
Back to 'our WSJ hero.'
His analyst tells him he needs to 'get away from it all' for several months a year or he
will 'end up in an early grave!' Same old story. What should he do? Why, take up fishing,
of course! Guess where. Right. Bingo. You got it. You're getting the picture now. Why
did it take you so long. OK, I forgot, you fish therefore you're limited. My mistake.
Should we wonder if he ever met his sibling? Did he ever envy the fluid casting stroke,
his connection with the environment, the calm way he talked and accurately tobacco-spit
a winged insect from the gunnel of the old cedar canoe they were drifting in? Darn ...'in
which they were drifting' Sorry for that, I'm still learning.
I think to 'wrap' this all up I may have found a sort of a compromise. One that should
make some kind of a marriage of the two elements. How about this? Let's say the first guy
catches a few fish and decides to have a meal for some people from the WSJ who have
come out to the 'boonies' to do a 'colorful human-interest' story about him. He cleans
the fish carefully and wraps the entrails for disposal as is a properly accepted method.
Now, what do you think he should wrap them in? I had thought of mentioning a possible
connection with 'bird-cage bottoms' and puppy-training, but felt that would be unnecessary
as those already exist.
The WSJ does not go into how long either lives, but there is no doubt in my mind.
Only one really did. ~ JC