By David Anderson
You would think bananas are to primates what portraits are to politicians.
Not any more.
British zoo workers have banned monkeys from peeling and eating bananas – presumably the ban bars banana wine and banana beer to boot – calling the fruit unappealing: “too sweet, too sugary, the equivalent cake and chocolate,” bad for their diet and, for proof that banana-free zones are better for baboons, “zoo officials say the reduction in bananas has led to a calmer monkey cage atmosphere.”
You read that right but it’s not right.
Bananas belong.
They’re “Old Mother Nature’s recipes.”
Recall, after all, the scene from the 1967 Walt Disney classic “The Jungle Book” and the song “The Bare Necessities” sung by Baloo the Bear in a duet with Mowgli as they cavort arm-in-arm below the monkeys above – the latter (I bet like even you now, the reader) going bananas in the upbeat, foot-tappin’, rhythmic free-style with banana peels strewn about – including a discarded banana wrapper or two worn by the rappin’ and jivin’ pair.
What crowd – for crying out loud – is keen on contemplating our distant cousins enclosed in calmer cages?
It don’t mean a thing if monkeys don’t got swing.
Next trip to the zoo, here’s what you do: slip ‘em a banana.
I mean can you picture a portrait of a primate without a half-peeled banana?
No. Neither can I.
Picture this: how ‘bout a politician whose oil painting portrait is no longer for public view?
You mean they were?
Well yes, sort of.
But like the bananas being banned from our predecessors, likenesses of our leaders are likewise no longer allowed.
For the first time in history – evolutionary or otherwise – a “bill bans taxpayer money from financing official portrait paintings, many of which can’t even be viewed by the public.”
It’s not right.
They’ve been framed.
It’s called – seriously – “the EGO Act,” or “Eliminating Government-funded Oil paintings Act,” which portends to pinch a pretty penny by placing politicians in the precarious position of portrait-lessness – saving the public some $200,000 for pictures for the most part not on display anyway.
“The Washington Times” and other news outlets reported about the high costs of some of the paintings and found that they often aren’t even available for public viewing.
“American taxpayers shouldn’t be called to sacrifice to pay for vanity paintings which are often hidden from the public,” said the bill’s sponsor Rep. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican.
“This is a waste of money that is rightly being eliminated.”
Party (Republican) pooper.
Sounds like someone is finally using some common sense. The politicians can pay for their own paintings or digital imaging. With today’s technology it certainly is affordable.