Even though Thanksgiving has come and gone for this year, I would like to express thankfulness that I live in a free country which is ruled by the people through fairly elected officials who are able to legislate because they have at the very least a basic understanding of parliamentary procedure. Of course, I believe that if we all learned how to govern ourselves better, we wouldn't need to place so much emphasis on governing each other. Since it might help to facilitate a political self-awareness movement by educating the masses about parliamentary procedure, I've compiled the following primer in a question and answer format:

Who invented parliamentary procedure?

Dr. Robert Parliament.

What prompted him to invent it?

Dr. Parliament was a member of the International Chess Association Rules Committee which met once a month in an English pub called the Knight and Bishop. Since the rules of chess hadn't changed in centuries, the committee had nothing to do and its meetings were generally over as soon as they began. Thus the committee members were forced to head back to home and family. Now this was a long time ago, in the days before automatic dishwashers and disposable diapers, and the members really needed to stay out later to avoid doing what in those days was considered women's work. To alleviate this problem, Dr. Parliament invented a self-perpetuating procedural protocol so that even though the committee had nothing to do, it would take them all night to do it, thus allowing them to sit around quaffing ale while their wives managed the house and kids alone.

Was Dr. Parliament famous for anything else?

Yes. He invented a recessed cigarette filter which was designed to negate the ill effects of smoking.

Did it work?

According to Tobacco Industry lobbyist Seymore Phlegm, the recessed filter is most effective in reducing non-addictive nicotine and tar levels in cigarettes.

What happened to Dr. Parliament?

He died of lung cancer.

Is there a monument to him somewhere?

Not yet.

Not yet?

That's correct. Although he died over 100 years ago, it was stipulated in his will that his funeral would be conducted in parliamentary procedure and it's still in session.

What is parliamentary procedure?

In general terms, it's a mode of discourse. More specifically, it's set of rules by which legislative bodies and other bureaucratic organizations conduct meetings.

Could you give an example in laymen's terms?

Yes. Imagine that four men--we'll call them Bill, Bob, Ross and Ralph--meet in a bar and decide to play a game of darts. In regular human discourse, it would go something like this:

Bill: Hey guys, let's play a game of darts.

Guys: Okay.

In parliamentary procedure, it would go like this:

Bill: I make a motion to play a game of darts. Do I have a second?

Bob: I second the motion.

Bill: The motion to play a game of darts has been seconded. Is there any discussion?

Ross: I'd like to say something.

Bill: The chair recognizes Ross.

Ross: Thank you. I want to know who elected you to run this meeting?

Bill: The motion on the floor concerns playing a game of darts. If you want to discuss leadership of this legislative body, henceforth referred to as "The Legislative Body," you'll have to make a motion that we defer the dart issue until after said matter is resolved.

Ross: I make such a motion.

Bill: A motion has been made to defer the dart game resolution until after leadership of The Legislative Body has been resolved. Is there a second?

Guys:

Bill: There is no second, therefore your motion fails, and by quo quid pro and/or habeas corpus and/or inna gadda de vida, the discussion automatically reverts to the dart game. The chair recognizes Ralph.

Ralph: I would like to inform the council that I've completed a study concerning the safety of bar-room dart games and recommend that we use the electronic version which involves darts with plastic tips which prevent injuries including but not limited to contusions, impalings and splinters.

Bill: A motion has been made to play electronic darts. I'll second the motion because it seems like a bridge to 21st Century bar-room recreation. Is there any discussion? The chair recognizes Ross.

Ross: I most strongly object. Do you know what the electronic game costs?

Bill: Do we have that information available?

Ralph (shuffling papers): I anticipated such objections and authorized a committee of non-partisan volunteers to research costs involved. According to those figures, if all four of us played, a game would cost fifty cents.

Ross: Fifty cents! What a waste. The regular dart game is free.

Bill: Strike that from the record. Ross, you are totally out of order. You must not speak until the chair recognizes you. Okay. The chair recognizes Ross.

Ross: Fifty cents! What a waste. The regular dart game is free.

Bill: The chair recognizes Bob.

Bob: I propose that we offset that expense by readjusting gratuitous consideration for the bartender. In our past four meetings, records show that we've tipped him an average of 17.5 percent, which is way out of line. If we gave him the standard 15 percent rate, we'd save a quarter, and if we cut that down to a very respectable 12.5 percent, we'd cover our loss.

Bill: The chair recognizes Ross.

Ross: I can't believe what I'm hearing. First you want to waste money, then you want to raise those funds by sticking it to the oft-cited middle class of our supposedly classless society. Furthermore, the electronic version with its flimsy plastic darts is a wimp game. How are you ever going to lead the country into war if you're afraid of playing with real darts. And finally, do you know where that electronic game was made? I'll tell you where. China. By patronizing that game we're handing a bushel of jobs over to the Reds. I most strongly move that we play the regular game.

Bill: Is there a second?

Bob: I second the motion.

Bill: The motion to play regular darts has been seconded. We'll conduct a voice vote. All in favor, say "Aye."

Everyone but Ralph: Aye.

Bill: Opposed, say "Nay."

Ralph: Nay.

Bill: The motion to play regular darts as opposed to the electronic version passes three to one. The chair recognizes Bob.

Bob: I move we commence playing.

Bill: A motion to commence the game has been made. Is there a second.

Ralph: I second it.

Bill: The motion has been seconded. Is there any discussion? The chair recognizes Ross.

Ross: Before we decide to start, I think we should determine the teams.

Bill: Would you care state that in the form of a motion?

Ross: Yes. I move that we pick teams before starting.

At this point, to save time and valuable newspaper column space, we will summarize the discussion pertaining to the selection of sides for the dart game. Bob wanted Ross for a partner, but Ross didn't want Bob. Bill and Bob definitely didn't want to play together because whenever they did in the past, they ended up calling each other bad names. That left only one option: Bill and Ross versus Bob and Ralph. We pick up the discussion here...

Bill: The chair recognizes Ross.

Ross: To tell you the truth, I don't see why I have to play with any of you. I move that we play singles. Every man for himself.

Bill: The motion has been made to play singles. To save time and newspaper column space, I will second the motion myself. Is there any discussion? The chair recognizes Bob.

Bob: I think we're doing the public a disservice by finalizing this issue before we've amended a motion to an amendment. That's my favorite part of parliamentary procedure.

Bill: Sorry Bob. If we had to demonstrate all the variations and intricacies of parliamentary procedure we'd be here till New Year's. If there is no further discussion, I'll ask for a voice vote. All in favor of playing a regular, non-electronic game of darts in which each man represents himself, say "Aye."

Guys: Aye.

Bill: Opposed, say "Nay."

Bartender: Nay.

Guys: Nay?

Bartender: Sorry gentlemen, it's closing time.

From your example, it would seem as though parliamentary procedure is an extremely convoluted way of communicating. If governments use this method, how do they ever accomplish anything?

Very slowly.

Do corporations use parliamentary procedure at their meetings?

Generally not.

Why not?

They'd go bankrupt.

Then why don't governments go bankrupt?

They are bankrupt.

Then how can they continue to operate?

They have good credit.

What's credit?

Credit is buying things without money.

How is that possible?

I'd love to tell you, but this is a primer on parliamentary procedure. You'll have to wait until Christmas for a primer on government finance, subtitled: "How to Stay Solvent by Printing Your Own Money." Now would you like to try a little parliamentary procedure yourself?

What do I have to do?

Make a motion.

Okay, I move we end this column. Do I have a second?

I second it.

All in favor of ending this column say "Aye."

Aye.

Do I have to ask for "Nays" even though I know there aren't any?

Yes.

Opposed, say "Nay."

Congratulations. You seem to have mastered the basics of parliamentary procedure and will now feel confident in conducting your Christmas feast in this manner. I'll stop by at Easter to see how it's going.