Pissant in a jar of urine

Earlier this week, I caught part of the segment on Glenn Beck’s radio show on his Obama Pee Pee eBay auction. In case you missed it, Beck created an Obama in Pee Pee “artwork” to tweak the Left and expose their hypocrisy regarding artistic license and freedom of speech. He auctioned it on eBay (all proceeds going to charity), but eBay pulled it before it ended.

By sheer coincidence, a friend tipped me to this provocatively titled blog piece from Bob Duggan: Is Glenn Beck’s Obama in Pee Pee the Last Shot Fired of the ‘80s and ‘90s Culture Wars? Glenn predicted the left would fail to see the point he was trying to make. Duggan does not disappoint.

Here’s Duggan’s opening salvo:

The sight of a grown man trying to stuff a bobbing plastic doll into a jar of what he claims to be his own urine is a sad thing, but when that man is right-wing commentator Glenn Beck making a strange comment about freedom of speech combined with a hateful symbolic act against the President, it’s not surprising. Beck tweely titles his artwork Obama in Pee Pee (shown above), but let’s call it what it is—Piss Obama, a 35-years-too-late reply (sic) to Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, one of the landmark works of the late ‘80s/early ‘90s “culture wars” pitting conservatives versus liberals in the battle for artistic expression. Beck hopes to piss off liberals with this act, but what he might have actually achieved is firing the last shot (squirt?) of the culture wars, proving perhaps once and for all that those cruel days are over.

Actually, I think the sight of a grown man dressed up like a character from a Pepe Le Pew cartoon trying to stuff a bobbing plastic doll that looks like Barack Obama impersonating Buddy Christ from Kevin Smith’s Dogma into a jar of what Glenn explicitly said was not his own urine is extremely funny. But the sight of a grown man who completely misses the point of Beck’s satire, gleans hidden messages in Beck’s urine, befuddles himself trying to expose Beck’s diabolical motives, reacts pretty much as Glenn predicted… and somehow thinks Beck comes off as the fool in the exchange—now that’s hilarious.

I  knew I was in for a hard slog midway through Duggan’s first sentence:

“… when that man is right-wing commentator Glenn Beck making a strange comment about freedom of speech combined with a hateful symbolic act against the President…”

Everybody knows who Beck is. Labeling him a “right-wing commentator” is just a lazy ploy to poison the well. And rather than explain why Beck made “… a strange comment about freedom of speech,” Duggan simply tells us what to think. Ten points from Slytherin.

Characterizing the Obama Pee Pee auction as “a hateful symbolic act against the President” is lazy and dishonest. How does Duggan know Beck’s motives are hateful? As Thomas Sowell explains: “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.” However, attributing bad motives is a useful Alinsky tactic to put opponents on the defensive.

Now a non-expert might say, “C’mon, the guy put a figure of the President in urine. Of course it’s hateful.” True. Someone who knows nothing about modern art could make that assumption. But Duggan’s expertise disqualifies him from such misunderstanding. Duggan knows Beck’s satire was in response to artwork depicting Obama as messiah; he discusses it in his second paragraph. But he suggests that Beck is only now responding to Serrano’s 1987 display to paint Beck as out of touch. (Presumably Duggan meant to say a 25-years–too-late reply: 2012-1987=25. Math)

But so what if Beck’s auction was in response to Serrano’s Piss Christ; how is that “too late?” Since when do responses to art have a “sell by” date? Serrano’s “art” doesn’t have an expiration date. Duggan’s description of his blog refutes his own point:

In this image-drenched world, the line between the visual arts and society is less distinct than ever before. The artists of today speak not only to present times but also engage in dialogue with the artists of the past, who both haunt us and challenge us to rise above the mundane. Picture This stands at the crossroads of the present, past, and future in art, taking a good look around at the landscape and what it means to us. In doing so, it aims to provide a roadmap for those interested in how looking at art leads to thinking about life (emphasis added).

Should art criticism of Rembrandt be characterized as a “350-years-too-late reply” to Rembrandt?

This sentence is a doozy:

“Beck hopes to piss off liberals with this act, but what he might have actually achieved is firing the last shot (squirt?) of the culture wars, proving perhaps once and for all that those cruel days are over.”

Does Duggan really think Beck’s eBay auction represents the Appomattox of the culture wars? Actually, he does. His oh-so-clever takeaway compares Beck to a Japanese soldier fighting decades after WWII ended, bringing his “35-years-too-late response” comment full circle. He probably thinks it’s a clever metaphor; actually it’s just a forced simile.

Bizarrely, Duggan finds a comical Obama doll in Pee Pee to be a hateful symbol, but thinks Serrano’s display of a crucifix—which for Christians represents the Lord of the universe—isn’t about religion at all. Huh?

In his rambling monologue, Beck calls forth the ghost not only of Serrano’s Piss Christ, but also that of Chris Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary, perhaps the most controversial work of the mid-1990s. Beck missed only Robert Mapplethorpe to complete the set. But that omission is especially telling. Piss Christ (like Piss Obama as a response to The Truth) isn’t about religion; it’s about oppression and suffering—specifically the oppression and suffering of the LGBT community in America, both then and now. Serrano chose the medium of bodily fluid at a time when bodily fluids were synonymous with the death sentence of AIDS. Piss Christ wasn’t an attack on religion or religious imagery but rather a modern use of that imagery to depict a new type of suffering and appeal for a new type of understanding and acceptance. Mapplethorpe may have photographed homosexual life in the 80s, but Serrano photographed its spirit.

Good grief. Beck’s omission of Mapplethorpe’s sick photographs is “especially telling?” Beck didn’t mention Ansel Adams’ photographs or opine on the merits of the Designated Hitter Rule either. What pray tell is “especially telling” about this omission? I thought Chris Matthews was the Grandmaster of dog whistle detection, but Duggan can hear dog whistles in what Beck doesn’t say.

I believe that Beck’s stunt comes not in response to The Truth but rather to the truth of the last election about public opinion regarding homosexuality and, most significantly, same-sex marriage. Linda Hirshman’s Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution (How a Despised Minority Pushed Back, Beat Death, Found Love, and Changed America for Everyone) argues that the American LGBT movement’s reached a tipping point of public acceptance, literally a victory not just for them, but for all people of any type of difference. The days of “culture wars” pitting American against American based on our differences rather than uniting us on our common values and dreams are over (I hope).

I won’t go so far as to accuse Beck of timing his stunt to blunt the impact of Saturday’s Day Without Art marking the passing of so many LGBT artists over the years. Beck’s statement rambled in so many directions that a clear message is hard to untangle, but the dog whistle of recalling Piss Christ and the “culture wars” of the past clearly tries to sound the classic anti-gay alarm signal. Like Hiroo Onoda, the Japanese soldier who fought on for three decades after World War II ended, Beck’s fighting a war long over. Call it Obama in Pee Pee or Piss Obama, Beck’s odd foray into the art world serves only to remind us of a time and a mindset best remembered in its passing.

How generous of Duggan not to go so far as to accuse Beck of timing his stunt to blunt the impact of an LGBT day of remembrance. In the same spirit, I won’t go so far as to accuse Duggan of timing his article to blunt the impact of Advent, Hannukah and Pearl Harbor. And I’ll give him props for the mileage (and dog whistles) he gets from attributing bad motives to people he disagrees with. First Beck was being hateful to the President. Now we learn that he was actually gay bashing via secret signals that 99.9% of his followers missed. (Hmm, maybe there’s something to those rumors about Larry Sinclair, the “Down-Low Club” at Rev. Wright’s church, the “wedding ring” Obama wore at Harvard, Reggie Love, Kal Penn, “Frank,” composite “girlfriends,” and how he throws a baseball. Excellent investigative work, Bob!)

The only apparent good news for Duggan is that the culture wars are relics of the distant past (he seems confused about who were/are the aggressors), and that Beck is the last combatant for the losing side. For an obsolescent pantomime villain, Beck sure draws a lot of hostile ammo. As Andrew Breitbart said, “if you aren’t drawing enemy fire, it’s because you’re not over the target.”

Personally I have no idea why Serrano put a crucifix in a jar of urine. Why did van Gogh cut off his ear? But unless Serrano was totally clueless, he had to know that millions would find his work blasphemous.

Yesterday I read about a Swedish artist with a German surname who uses ashes of incinerated Holocaust victims as the medium for his drawings. Perhaps this chap would say he intended no disrespect to the victims’ families, but “chose the medium of [dead Jewish remains to highlight] the suffering and oppression of the [neo-Nazi] community” and “appeal for a new type of understanding and acceptance.” Thankfully, most of us reject such sophistry and find his so-called art reprehensible and obscene. By what criteria does Duggan distinguish hateful Holocaust and Obama-in-Pee-Pee art from legitimate Jesus-in-urine art? Once universally-recognized lines of decency are crossed, lines are blurred, redrawn and erased again and again until as Dostoyevsky famously predicted, “everything is permitted.”

If Beck’s Obama in Pee Pee parody is hateful toward the President, then it follows a fortiori that Serrano’s display was hateful toward Christianity. It’s hard to see how one can rationally believe otherwise. However for Duggan, an image of Obama in fake urine is hateful, but an image of the Son of God in the real thing is perfectly fine. Even if Duggan was consistent, that still wouldn’t make his belief about Beck reasonable. He fails to consider the more likely explanation that Beck was mocking any or all of the following: Serrano, D’Antuono and/or Obama idolatry generally. Context matters. D’Antuono’s work and the Obama idolatry that inspired it provide the context to understand Beck’s parody. But Beck’s stunt remains an insoluble riddle for someone like Duggan who thinks the last election was about… (wait for it) … “public opinion about homosexuality and … same sex marriage.”

Single-issue voters find it hard to understand those who don’t share their singular focus. This may explain why Duggan never quite manages to understand Glenn’s point. It isn’t terribly complicated. Glenn sought to expose the hypocrisy of the Left re: “controversial” shock art. By creating an obviously satirical work of art that offends liberals, Beck reveals the Left’s feigned fidelity to artistic integrity and freedom of speech as a sham.

If you want to celebrate blasphemous and sacrilegious images, fine, knock yourself out. But don’t pretend you’re taking a principled stand by labeling literal excrement “art.” And please no more double-standards re: free speech. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech to offensive speech from all sides, including critics of the offensive speech liberals deem sacrosanct. But the Orwellian Left wants it both ways. They want blanket protection for obscenity they label “art”, and attempt to censor opposing viewpoints they label “censorship,” “racist” or “offensive.” Their real principle is “free speech for themselves, but not for others.”

Their hypocritical façade is exposed when a controversial work offends them. When normal people are offended by Piss Christ or Mapplethorpe’s graphic photos, the Left is ecstatic. But if a truly counter-cultural artist insults one of the Left’s sacred cows—or the “Religion of Peace” that stones women and executes homosexuals (somebody please explain that to me)—then the Tolerance mask slips, revealing their true Totalitarian face.

Putting a crucifix in urine or smearing feces on Christian iconography isn’t art; it’s defecating on art. An infant’s soiled diaper isn’t art no matter how closely the diaper stains resemble the work of Jackson Pollock. Piss Christ, smearing elephant dung on an icon of Madonna, etc. are to real art what the heckler’s veto is to free speech.

******

In fairness, I shouldn’t knock Piss Christ because it inspired what might have been my greatest artistic triumph. During Serrano’s fifteen minutes of fame, I told my friends the following story. I tried to keep a straight face, but I suspect they knew I was being facetious. My so-called artist career could have gone like this:

I told my friends that I had submitted a mason jar filled solely with my own urine to the GuggenheimMuseum, only to see my beautiful work of art rejected. For whatever reason, those pretentious white museum curators ignored the challenges I overcame to produce my masterwork. First, I had to consume more beer than the Surgeon General or State Trooper sobriety tests recommend—but alas we must suffer for our art. Second, much of my “work” never made it to the canvas, as my inebriated state impaired not only my driving ability, but also my usual pinpoint accuracy.

I took small comfort in knowing that my work’s rejection had nothing to do with its artistic value. Critics conceded that it showed tremendous originality and potential. They appreciated how the amber hues I produced—derived from a carefully nuanced mix of dark and light brews—refracted different kinds of light. No, the power-brokers of the art world decreed that—for reasons having nothing to do with art—my precious sola urine jar would never be displayed alongside similar masterpieces by giants named Mapplethorpe, Ofili, Pollock and Serrano.

They rightly feared that my sans cross “pee pee” would offend atheists.

****

Here in this image-drenched world, the line between a doll in a jar of Pee Pee and a crucifix in a 25-year-old jar of urine may be less distinct than ever before, but hypocrisy, double standards and incoherence are on full display.

Was blind but now I see

Grisly criminal acts are as old as humanity, but this story encapsulates the greatest evil of our time.

The title sums it up: “Woman forced to remarry the husband who threw acid in her face after she divorced him for being unfaithful.”

This woman’s horrific scars serve as a cruel and permanent reminder of the moment her husband of 18 years flung acid into her face.

Nurbanu had divorced her unfaithful and violent spouse after catching him with another woman.

Eight days later, she was cooking at home in Bangladesh when he pulled up on a motorbike and doused her with acid, leaving her blind and disfigured.

The 36-year-old now has to endure living with her former spouse again after his mother forced her to sign an affidavit to have him released from prison following the attack.

Horrific and sickening.

Monira Rahman, CEO of the Acid Survivors’ Foundation (ASF) in Bangladesh, has worked with the victims of acid and petrol attacks in the country for the past 14 years.

In a blog for the Huffington Post, she said the majority of the girls and women she had worked with had suffered at the hands of men who viewed them as ‘commodities’, and ‘believed they were justified in disfiguring them and violating their rights’.

That there is even a need in this world for an NGO like Acid Survivors’ Foundation is heart-wrenching alone. Tragically, Nurbanu’s suffering is far too typical in certain parts of the world. Wikipedia even has an article on acid throwing.

Ms Rahman said the number of acid attacks in Bangladesh has fallen thanks to the efforts of the government, the charity, donors and international development organisations to address the problem, but added that there was much more work to do.

There were 111 acid attacks in Bangladesh in 2011, compared to 500 in 2002.

I guess an 80% decline in acid attacks represents some small objective measure of “progress” in this barbaric part of the world. I am less optimistic when reading stories like this about our civilised allies’ willingness to confront intrinsic evil when they are no longer sure that evil exists.

But Ms Rahman said ‘gender-based’ violence like acid attacks could only be completely eradicated when women in Bangladesh enjoy equal rights.

‘Only by empowering women and ensuring equality we will have a society which has zero tolerance for violence against women,’ she wrote.

I don’t doubt Ms. Rahman’s sincerity. I admire her efforts to help victims like Nurbanu. The world would be a much better place if there were more people like her. But after spending 14 years helping victims of these evil attacks, her only explanations and solutions are framed in naive abstractions. What concrete steps does Ms. Rahman suggest Nurbanu take that will “empower” her and “ensure her equality”? My recommendations would include the brand names Glock or Smith & Wesson, but I seriously doubt Ms. Rahman had something similar in mind. It is unclear she has anything else in mind beyond vague, abstract platitudes in the face of very real and tangible evil.

Kerry McDermott, the author of this UK Daily Mail piece, is no more insighful. McDermott’s article includes an informative sidebar titled “The Battle To Rid Bangladesh of Acid Attacks.” Apparently the attackers throw nitric or sulphuric acid at the victim’s face or genitals, causing excruciating pain, permanent disfigurement and scarring. Many victims like Nurbanu suffer permanent blindness. To add indignity to their injuries, they are often ostracized by their families and neighbors, as if the evils perpetrated upon them were somehow their fault.

McDermott’s sidebar idicates that “Common motives behind the violent attacks include land or financial disputes, marital quarrels, and bitterness over spurned advances.”

Completely missing the point. I’m fairly sure that land and financial disputes, marital spats and scorned lovers are as common in the UK as in the US. But I have not heard about a similar epidemic of acid attacks on women in either country.

Two words immmediately came to mind as I was reading this article. The first, which I’ve bandied about a lot, was “evil.” The second, which I was initially hesitant to mention, begins with the letter I and ends in slam. Curiously neither of these word found its way into the Daily Mail article or sidebar, appearing only in the unwashed masses’ comments.

All too often I find myself returning to this great quote from George Orwell: “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” All too often these days I find that restating the obvious can get us into hot water. Then I remembered another useful quote from G.K. Chesterton: “I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.”

Since the earliest days of sailing, mariners would cast sounding lines to measure the ocean’s depths. I fear we have arrived at a depth beyond the reach of any sounding line, where avoidance of the obvious has become the overriding duty of highly educated but foolish men.

Is it really so difficult to connect the dots?

From the Wikipedia article:

These attacks are most common in Cambodia, Afganistan, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and other nearby countries. Globally, at least 1500 people in 20 countries are attacked in this way yearly, 80% of whom are female and somewhere between 40% and 70% under 18 years of age.

In Afghanistan in November 2008, extremists subjected schoolgirls to acid attacks for attending school. Attacks or threats of attacks on women who failed to wear hijab or were otherwise “immodestly dressed” have been reported.

In 2006 a group in Gaza calling itself “Just Swords of Islam” claimed to have thrown acid at a young woman who was dressed “immodestly,” and warned other women to wear the hijab.

According to New York Times reporter Nicholas D. Kristof, acid attacks are at an all time high in Pakistan and increasing every year. The Pakistani attacks he describes are typically the work of husbands against their wives who have “dishonored them.”

Do these sound like random disconnected events or are they part of a pattern?

Interestingly, the outlier country in this otherwise related group reported somewhat different motives for these attacks: “In Cambodia, it was reported that these attacks were mostly carried out by wives against their husbands’ lovers.” It doesn’t surprise me that this happens in Cambodia; it surprises me that it doesn’t happen on Jerry Springer.

I shared the above with my good friend Luis at Boiling Frogs. He pointed out that the Cambodian attacks illustrate what happens when societies begin to empower women as Ms. Rahman advocates. Some of the liberated women become the attackers, using their newly-acquired power against … other women. In fairness, the Cambodians apparently missed the “zero tolerance for violence against women” component of Ms. Rahman’s formula for societal advancement.

Mark Steyn has written fondly of a time when Britons reacted quite differently to quaint indigenous customs involving brutality toward women. In a 2002 piece titled “Multiculturalists are the real racists,” Steyn writes:

Once upon a time we knew what to do. A British district officer, coming upon a scene of suttee, was told by the locals that in Hindu culture it was the custom to cremate a widow on her husband’s funeral pyre. He replied that in British culture it was the custom to hang chaps who did that sort of thing. There are many great things about India — curry, pyjamas, sitars, software engineers — but suttee was not one of them. What a pity we’re no longer capable of being “judgmental” and “discriminating.” We’re told the old-school imperialists were racists, that they thought of the wogs as inferior. But, if so, they at least considered them capable of improvement. The multiculturalists are just as racist. The only difference is that they think the wogs can never reform: Good heavens, you can’t expect a Muslim in Norway not to go about raping the womenfolk! Much better just to get used to it.

Of course the local Hindu lads were deeply offended by the British officer’s judgmental attitude. By what authority did he interfere with their religious customs? The British officer conceded the locals’ point, but noted that his countrymen had their own custom as well. The locals were free to build their funeral pyre and the British would build their gallows alongside it. The locals could follow their custom and the British would follow theirs. Both culture’s customs would receive equal treatment. Isn’t that what multiculturalists want?

Apparently not. The widow’s life was spared.

How we view this outcome depends on one’s perspective. From Steyn’s and my admittedly imperialist, racist, troglodyte point-of-view, a widow’s life was spared. For multiculturalists who believe that interactions between persons and competing cultures are ultimately power struggles and that no criterion exists to judge between competing customs, the outcome simply goes to show how the dominant British culture imposed its custom upon the Hindu’s weaker (but equally valid) custom. From the widow’s perspective—well, her point-of-view was never part of the discussion.

Steyn concludes:

As one is always obliged to explain when tiptoeing around this territory, I’m not a racist, only a culturist. I believe Western culture — rule of law, universal suffrage, etc. — is preferable to Arab culture: that’s why there are millions of Muslims in Scandinavia, and four Scandinavians in Syria. Follow the traffic. I support immigration, but with assimilation. Without it, like a Hindu widow, we’re slowly climbing on the funeral pyre of our lost empires. You see it in European foreign policy already: they’re scared of their mysterious, swelling, unstoppable Muslim populations.

They’re still tiptoeing around the elephant in the room, fearful of damaging the fragile self-esteem of 7th century savages, whose sole innovative use 21st century technology they could never invent, consists in finding creative ways to inflict mayhem and murder on innocent victims. Their mindset is not unlike that of the late Ugandan dictator and practitioner of cannibalism, Idi Amin. As historian Paul Johnson recounts in his brilliant history of the 20th century Modern Times, Amin owned a state-of-the-art refrigerator/freezer, which he used to preserve uneaten human leftovers for midnight snacks presumably. Hey, just because Islamist fanatics are often murderous psychopaths doesn’t mean they aren’t sensitive.

Maybe I’m being too harsh on McDermott. If he was writing for the New York Times, the article might not have been published to avoid offending members of the Religion of Peace^TM. (Actually, the excerpt from the Wikipedia article I quoted referenced a New York Times article by Nicholas Kristoff. But when I clicked on the Times’ link, all I got was “Page Not Found” error message.)

Perhaps when Ms. Sandra Fluke is selected as Time’s next Person of the Year, she might consider a visit to Bangladesh and other places where acid attacks on women take place. I’m sure that Nurbanu would be inspired to meet America’s most courageous voice in the Republicans’ War on Women^TM. In fact, I can’t think of anything that could empower women more than a shout out from Ms. Fluke. She could bring these poor women free contraceptives and help them see (figuratively speaking) how fortunate they are not to live in a country where true evil—people who oppose paying for free contraceptives—exists.

The irony is that even though Nurbanu was literally blinded by her husband’s blind sadistic hate, victims like her can still see truth more clearly than sanctimonious liberal frauds who wilfully blind themselves by their own delusions.

H/t to my friend Symeon who first introduced me to the idea of sounding lines as metaphor.

The 99% Solution: A Modest Tax Proposal

Warren Buffett thinks billionaires like himself aren’t paying their “fair share” in taxes. He famously stated that he pays a lower marginal rate than his secretary. If Buffett believes the problems facing us are the result of his paying too little taxes, who am I to argue?

So Buffett calls for higher income and capital gains tax rates.

Omaha, we have a problem.

It’s often (albeit incorrectly) said that money is the root of all evil. But Buffett’s (read Obama’s) tax plan does not redress the glaring injustice created by huge disparities of wealth.

Obama and Buffett apparently think income inequality is a problem; I disagree. But even if it is, it’s a problem without a solution. Redistribution does not eliminate income disparities between classes; it just creates different ones, destroying wealth in the process. (If you hate our country, that’s called a two-fer.) Income differences exist in every economic system. If you think they don’t exist under Communism, I’ll gladly buy you a one-way ticket to the Worker’s Paradise of your choice.

Since Buffett pays himself only a modest salary relative to his immense wealth, his preferred tax hikes would still leave him with a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary, which I thought was the impetus for his crocodile tears. However, the new rates would ensure that the 50% or so of us who do pay federal income taxes will incur a much bigger tax burden within a few years.

The Federal Reserve’s rapid expansion of the money supply in recent years makes steep inflation inevitable once that money circulates in the economy. As Thomas Sowell explains, inflation is a hidden tax that rich and poor alike pay. Our salaries will lag behind price increases, but they will rise eventually out of sheer necessity. And everybody will pay the vast array of taxes Obama seeks for “multi-millionaires and billionaires” (i.e., people earning over $200,000 per year). If you currently make less than $200,000 and don’t give a crap about those who do, you may get there soon. When hyper-inflation hits, even minimum wage employees will find themselves earning $200,000 or more per year. And paying $50 instead of $5 for coffee at Starbucks.

This is another one of Socialism’s dirty little secrets. The higher taxes Buffett and Obama seek to impose on the rest of us do not touch wealth they’ve already accumulated. Higher tax rates do not redistribute or destroy (same thing) existing wealth, but they do make it harder for people not already wealthy to become rich.

For someone who’s earned a reputation for wealth redistribution, Obama is something of a piker, redistributionally speaking. His proposals leave a lot of un-redistributed wealth on the table, including Buffett’s estimated $40 billion net worth and Obama’s $17 million net worth.

Our Founders understood that the power to tax was the power to destroy. Progressive income tax rates are a proven method to keep others from achieving the same success that Buffett earned and Obama didn’t. Because no matter how “progressively” you skew income tax rates, the uber-rich will always find ways to pay less. And demagogues like Buffett and Obama will increase our tax burden—but not theirs—to ensure that “everybody pays their fair share.”

Incidentally, the actual Biblical injunction warns that the love of money is the root of all evil. If so, then isn’t the love of other people’s money an even greater sin? After all, the Bible clearly states: “Thou shalt not steal,” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.”

My 99% solution would remedy the obvious defects with Buffett’s plan and show those “greedy 1%ers” some tough love.

It’s ingeniously simple.

Eliminate the income tax altogether and replace it with a “reasonable” wealth tax, say 99% of any amounts over $10 million. No exceptions.

The combined wealth of the Forbes 400 List totals approximately $1.7 trillion. My proposal would immediately bring in $1.683 trillion in revenue just from the Forbes 400 list, leaving the Forbes 400 with $17 billion or an average of $42.5 million apiece. Actually, they’d get to keep around $52 million apiece, since my modest proposal would not bother collecting a cent from anyone with less than $10 million. That excludes 99% of us. Do we support the 99% or the greedy 1%?

Unlike Buffettt and Obama, I admit that my plan is as equally self-serving as theirs. And unlike them, I’ll admit upfront that my redistributionist scheme will be as big an epic failure as theirs. But since they say they’re willing to pay a little more and I’ve never said any such thing, only my plan guarantees we both receive the tax treatment we want.

Incidentally, my $10 million exemption will ensure that nearly all small businesses, which create 70 percent of the jobs in this country, aren’t affected. To paraphrase Woody Allen in Annie Hall, I’m a redistributionist, but from the right.

Unfortunately, my proposal will still leave the Obamas with a personal fortune of $10.1 ill-gotten millions. Leaving them with that much money after what they’ve put the country through is an obvious flaw, but no tax plan is perfect.

Mine is much fairer than Obama’s and Buffett’s.

And since the community-organizing Constitutional law professor (sic) keeps saying: “We live in a Democracy (sic).”

Well then, shall we put our two plans to a vote?

Union thug: ‘Bain-style’ killing of Twinkie

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka blames… Mitt Romney??? for Hostess’ demise.

“What’s happening with Hostess Brands is a microcosm of what’s wrong with America, as Bain-style Wall Street vultures make themselves rich by making America poor,” Trumka said in a public statement. “Crony capitalism and consistently poor management drove Hostess into the ground, but its workers are paying the price.”

Hostess Brands—a company started during the Great Depression—and Obama destroyed it. That has to qualify as an achievement of sorts.

“Trumka no go! Trumka stay with Sheriff Barack. Sheriff Barack first man ever whip Trumka.
Trumka impressed. Have deep feelings for Sheriff Barack.”

Message to Certain Segments of the U.S. Electorate

I tried.

Lord knows I tried.

I tried to find a silver lining. I tried to be philosophical about what happened.

I know that God is in charge—not Obama. I know that God draws straight with crooked lines… and if He needs a crooked line to work with, He sure found one in Obama. I know that God’s justice is perfect; and if we are being punished for our sinfulness and for abandoning God, then so be it. I don’t really think He’s punishing us, but perhaps leaving us to our own devices (with Obama in charge, Lord help us!) is how a merciful and loving Father reminds us that we desperately need Him. And secretly (well not really a secret), I’m hoping He’s fed up with Obama’s pride and blasphemy, and is setting him up for the biggest fall since Humpty Dumpty.

I want to believe that the hand of Divine Providence is guiding us in spite of ourselves and that these struggles will produce a greater good. Romans 5:3–5

But today I haven’t been in much of a philosophical or religious mood. I’m not quite ready to hear the better angels of my nature.

I’m livid.

I thought of Ronald Reagan’s quote yesterday: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” And I’m livid that I am part of the generation that actively worked to extinguish freedom.

Yesterday’s result confirms Mencken’s observation in 1916: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” The only consolation re: yesterday’s obamanation is that the fools who voted for it will get what they richly deserve, and it will be all the worse for them because they can’t see what’s coming whereas we can see and prepare.

Mencken also said, “There are times when every man must be tempted to spit on his hands, hoist a black flag, and begin slitting throats.” That’s how I feel today. Call me Bad Mencken. At least my expression when I saw Obama supporters let even the dimmest among them know to give me a wide berth today.

Consider this missive a first draft on my enemies list—I didn’t have an enemies list until this morning. Should I worry that I found compiling an enemies list therapeutic? But since the President has an enemies list—and a kill list—and he won the Nobel Peace Prize, I figure I deserve a little something, you know, for the effort.

Message to Certain Segments of the U.S. Electorate:

To African American voters who voted with the 99%:

[Disclaimer: This is not directed to every African-American voting for Obama. I’m sure there are many of you who honestly think he’s doing a great job considering the bad hand he was dealt. They may be misinformed, but are not racist. No, this is directed to those who know perfectly well that he’s ruining the country, but take perverse joy in “sticking it to THE MAN” so to speak.]

You are the same fools who cheered when OJ was found not guilty, and for the same reasons. This election was your OJ verdict writ large, a middle finger salute to middle America. Enjoy your brief Reginald Denny moment. Cheering OJ’s acquittal was a safe eff you victory lap; after all OJ wasn’t likely to go on a killing spree in (or even be seen anywhere near) your neighborhoods after getting off scot free. This time you will reap what you sowed: even higher unemployment than the double-the-national-average you currently enjoy courtesy of Barack, more dependency on the federal government, higher gas and food prices (which disproportionately hurt the poor who must pay a higher share of their income on these things). Oh and guess what, you’re still poor after a nearly 50-year long “War on Poverty” and significantly poorer if you live in states run by Democrats you keep voting for.

Does it make you feel proud voting for a president who supports Planned Parenthood 100%? An organization whose founder Margaret Sanger enthusiastically promoted abortion as an instrument to reduce the black population (but opposed abortion for whites). But thanks to progressives, at least you have a great public education system so your children and grandchildren won’t have to face multi-generational poverty. Oh wait.

To seniors who voted for Obama because they feared Romney would end Medicare as we know it:

You fools! Don’t you know what will end Medicare as we know it? Answer: Medicare as we know it. The program is unsustainable and known to be so for many years. Don’t you know that unsustainable means it will collapse all on its own unless we come up with a plan to save it. What’s Obama’s plan? As Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geitner said to Congressman Paul Ryan: “We don’t have a plan, but we know we don’t like yours.”

You voted for the guy who gutted Medicare (which you paid into) to expand Medicaid (to redistribute healthcare services to those who didn’t pay). You voted for ObamaCare, which will lead to rationing, make health insurance even more unaffordable, while driving more doctors and health professionals out of the market, requiring even more rationing. Guess who’ll be first on the list to be denied necessary medical care. Congratulations! Soon you’ll get to pay the ultimate stupid tax.

You voted for the party that raised FICA/SS taxes to keep Medicare and Social Security solvent then looted the “lock box,” replacing our money with worthless government IOUs. Recall the scene in Dumb and Dumber when the suitcase with the randsom money is opened and found to contain no currency, but lots of IOU’s. You’re voting for those guys, difference being this time the suitcase contains $16 trillion in IOU’s, and you voted for… more IOU’s. But at least you won’t be lonely in your retirement, with your adult “children” living in the basement to keep you company… and using your utilities, eating your food and contributing nothing toward household expenses.

And at least you’re getting a decent interest rate on your savings to supplement your measly Social Security checks, thank to Obama’s and the current Fed’s policies. Oops, my bad.

To the so-called “War on women” voters:

Remember when you used to boast “We’ve come a long way baby!” Now you have reproductive rights in lieu of babies and seem determined to prove what a recipe for disaster the suffrage movement was. Congratulations! Every time there’s an election between a decent honorable man and a worthless lying POS, a majority of you ALWAYS vote for the POS. Every $^*^ time! Even a laboratory rat learns to avoid those parts of the maze where they get zapped with electricity, but so-called feminists NEVER learn. You voted overwhelming for Ted Kennedy six times after he left Mary Jo Kopechne to die from asphyxiation while he went to sober up get help. You voted for the rapist Bill Clinton. You voted for Anthony Weiner and you would vote for Anthony Weiner’s weiner.

You voted to protect your precious “constitutional” right to kill your unborn child. You voted for a president who opposed a law to protect babies who survive abortion attempts. You voted for a president who supports abortion rights absolutely without exceptions, when the leading reason for abortion worldwide is sex-selection. Can’t have too many girls being born, and you support this perverse and barbaric form of gendercide.

You voted for this disaster because of a risible fictitious “war on women” that insulted your intelligence, but somehow you weren’t insulted. Meanwhile you ignore the actual war on women that’s taking place in the Islamist world. That real war on women is going to get uglier thanks to this president who gives support to Islamist extremists who promote Sharia law, which means honor killings, legalized rape, sex slavery for millions of women and de facto slavery for all women forced to live under Sharia. Their blood should be on your hands, but you couldn’t care less. It profits a man nothing to sell his sold for the world, and you sold yours for thirty pills a month.

To the “mainstream” media:

Congratulations! Your deceitful and malevolent campaign to accelerate the destruction of America worked beyond your wildest dreams. You manufactured this year’s October Surprise in the form of a September, October and November suppression of the shameful betrayal of Americans in Benghazi. Once reporters competed with one another to see who could uncover the next Watergate story. Now you conspire in AOL chat rooms to ensure that inconvenient stories about Democrats never see the light of day. And we still haven’t forgotten your endless stories about that 30-year-old National Guard letter to discredit Bush, a letter that was as obviously fake as Obama’s online birth certificate. Speaking of which, you mock those who raise questions about the president’s shady past as “birthers,” seemingly oblivious to the fact the original list of “birthers” includes Obama himself (who started the idea by telling people he was born in Kenya), Obama’s publisher, Obama’s grandmother, and Hillary Clinton who first raised the eligibility issue in the 2008 primary.

You’ve been hemorrhaging readers and viewers and losing advertisers and advertising revenue due to your obvious bias and contempt for truth, indeed contempt for all traditional values. But instead of doing the respectable and honorable work that journalists once did, you double down on lies and propaganda and join JournoList groups to ensure group think and no deviation from the approved (Democrat) party line.

You’ve gone from publishing daily to just a few times a week to publishing online only, You’ve cut salaries, staff and office space and you’re still going broke. You mock Rush Limbaugh who has an audience of 30 million and Fox News which has more viewers than all other cable news networks combined. By the way did you know that Rush earns more money per year than all newspapers make combined? But then again, so do I.

To 68% of young voters:

Truly you are the biggest losers. How much does a college education cost these days? Good thing the colleges are doing their best to keep skyrocketing education costs down, unlike those greedy Oil Companies that gave us $1.83/gallon gas under evil Bush. But of course, it’s tough having a car when you can’t get even an entry level job with just a bachelor’s degree. So here’s a thought: while you spend the next ten years or so waiting for the economy to recover after the next round of StimuLESS (Thank you sir, may I have another?), maybe you can double down on your investment by getting a masters degree, in say puppetry like that OWS guy who for some reason couldn’t find a job. Guess the really good puppetry jobs require a Ph.D.

So by the time you finally graduate—when you’re 30 or so—you’ll owe $500K or more but can’t find work. Did you know that you can’t discharge student loans in bankruptcy and if the banks forgive part of the debt, it’s considered income? Lucky you! Good thing your parents let you live in the basement and eat for free, assuming your parents still have homes that aren’t in foreclosure.

Of course I’m exaggerating when I say you can’t find work; many of you have excellent part-time jobs at McDonald’s, Game Stop or Blockbuster (until the recent layoffs—bummer). The good news is things are so bad all around, the fact that you get to live and eat free and contribute nothing to your parent’s household bills means you likely have more disposable income than your parents!

But don’t worry about your student loan debts. When If you miss a payment, you can get your parents to co-sign the paperwork and the government will deduct a certain amount from your parents’ Social Security checks. Isn’t life grand when you’re (barely) young, (over)educated and totally dependent on your parents’ charity? But hey, your President never grew up and look where he ended up, so the same plan could work for you. And if it doesn’t, you can do as he does and blame Bush.

It’s a partial enemies list. I left out government parasites workers, union thugs, Hollywood/other “celebrity freaks” and above all Democrat and duplicitous RINO politicians from New Jersey. Unfortunately I can’t say what I really think of them in words not beginning with the letter F. Suffice to say you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious!

Schooled

Did CNN’s Candy Crowley collude with the Obama campaign before last night’s debate in Hempstead?

I think so, and I think I can prove it.

Let’s restate the obvious:

For this Town Hall format debate, alleged undecided voters submitted questions to the candidates. As moderator, Crowley selected which questions would be asked. Her selections were curious to say the least; they appeared designed to highlight issues helpful to the incumbent and embarrass the challenger. For instance, one audience member asked a question about “equal pay” for women. The premise of the question is bogus, but pointing out its deficiencies can only hurt the side inclined to tell the truth. Crowley repeated the tired assertion that women receive 72% pay for “the same work” as men.

Where to begin? Hasn’t the percentage of the disparity changed since the feminists first made this claim? Crowley repeated a number dating back to the 70’s. It was bogus then, and bogus now. If the premise is true, then it must also be true that employers are paying men nearly 40% more than necessary for the same work. Most businesses operate on much tigther profit margins than this, so any employer with a grain of common sense would hire employees willing to work for 72% of what their costly male counterparts demand. Mitt opted not to challenge the premise of the question. I went to the kitchen to make a sandwich rather than find out which candidate gave the better vapid answer.

I loved the most obviously slanted “question.” Paraphrasing for brevity, the “questioner” prefaced with an editorial: while he was disappointed with the last four years, he blamed George W. Bush for most of our problems. “So please tell us Governor Romney, how your policies would differ from those of George Bush?” Classic heads-we-win/tails-you-lose trick question for the challenger forcing him to choose between defending Bush (so Obama could run against Bush again) or discrediting the 44th President. I think Romney should have challenged the premise of the question and turned it on Obama, e.g., “The President always talks of failed Bush policies of the previous eight years, but doesn’t specify which ones? Does he mean the failed $1.83 per gallon gasoline prices or the 4.7% unemployment we had before the Democrats took over Congress and caused Fannie and Freddy to trigger the 2007 financial crisis?

Throughout the evening, Crowly kept challenging Romney on his answers, and thanking Obama for his.

Obama was much better prepared this time, kept his talking points straight with no signifcant flubs. In fact, he seemed a little too prepared, uncharacteristically so without his teleprompter in my opinion. I began to smell a rat.

Actually, I began to smell a rat before the debate started when it was announced that the questions were not disclosed to either campaign. I was reminded of how I cringe when I hear an inexperienced magician say “I have here a perfectly normal deck of cards.” Normal people don’t go around making disclaimers before they are challenged. Try this experiment: next time you play cards for money, announce to the table “I have here a perfectly normal deck of cards” as you introduce a new deck when it’s your turn to deal. Media moderators give disclaimers for the same reasons magicians say they’re using a perfectly ordinary deck of cards. Usually the magicians who say this are lying.

Midway through the debate, I saw the proof.

Toward the end of the debate, finally we heard a good question about the Benghazi attack that left four Americans dead, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens. The questioner asked about reports that the State Department denied Embassy requests for additional security. He wanted to know if that was true and if so, why? Obama dodged the question and Romney, who’s much quicker on his feet than the President, didn’t call him on it. Not because he missed the point, but because why flick a jab when you can go for the knockout. And to everyone watching, Obama had left his glass jaw wide open by making the ludicrous claim that he correctly called the attack on the embassy an act of terrorism the very next day.

An incredulous Romney challenged him, but Obama stuck to his preposterous claim. When Romney asked him to repeat what he just said, Obama turned to Crowley, who confirmed that Obama was right. Suddenly the knockout punch missed wildly and Obama scored a telling counterpunch.

Except he didn’t. The counterpunch was a cheapshot, delivered not by the limp-wristed flyweight, but by the super-heavyweight referee. Before an audience of 70 million, Crowley said to Romney, “He’s right. That’s what he said.” Except, in the immortal words of Lawrence Peter “Yogi” Berra, Obama never actually said what Crowley insisted he said. Afterwards, before an slightly smaller audience (400K vs. 70 million), Yogi Crowley admitted she’d “made a wrong mistake.”

The whole thing was a set-up, and one that Obama could not have pulled off without collusion on the part of Crowley. Obama’s unmemorable comments the day after the Ambassador’s murder included a throwaway line that “acts of terror will not go unpunished.” He never said the embassy attack was a terrorist act. Indeed, it defies logic and common sense to claim he would have done so one day after the incident, and then spend several weeks, blaming the attack on a silly internet movie trailer. (This from an administration that three years later still won’t concede that the Camp Hood massacre was a terrorist act even though Maj. Hasan shouted “Allah Akhbar” as the shooting began.)

When Crowley affirmed Obama’s deception, some members of the audience applauded—in violation of the house no applause rule. Who broke the rules? Michelle Obama and members of the media.

Think about this. Crowley just happened to have the transcript of a perfunctory Obama speech that was about as memorable as a typical Soviet apparatchik’s glowing paen to the architects of the latest five-year plan. In the Soviet Union, such speeches were worth saving—to line birdcages. Yet somehow Crowley just happened to bring a copy of the same speech Obama misleadingly quoted in response to a question he wasn’t given in advance. And Crowley already had highlighted the selective quote, as if it was somehow important.

The setup was interesting. While Romney looked as stunned as everyone else who’s been following the story and challenged the statement, Obama, looking like the proverbial cat who ate the canary, calmly replied, “Proceed Governor.” Understandably, the exchange left Romney speechless. For Obama to claim that he correctly called the attack a terrorist act from day one wasn’t a mistake or “spin,” it was a shockingly brazen reality-denying Orwellian Big Lie. To anyone who followed the news, it was utterly preposterous to suggest he told the truth when his entire Administration spent weeks knowingly and falsely blaming the attack on a silly video—including Obama himself in a speech to the United Nations—when the Aministration already knew the video story was a lie.

And then like an amateur magician reaching into his top hat, Obama asked Crowley to pull the transcript. Huh? By a remarkable “coincidence” Crowley just happened to have the transcript of Obama’s September 12 Rose Garden speech right in front of her, with the relevant quote highlighted. And she said that Obama was right.

Riiigghhht!!!

How could Obama KNOW that Crowley would have the transcript ready to refute Romney when he pounced on what was an obvious lie?

Equally curious, how did Crowley immediately produced the precise sentence in question when Obama asked for the transcript? Have you ever heard a talk show host ask a producer for a tape and the producer has trouble locating it? It happens all the time … even though radio shows prepare these things in advance. Yet last night, Obama referenced one of his hundreds of unmemorable speeches, and the moderator not only had the transcript with her, she had the line Obama cited already queued up to make Romney look bad.

If that isn’t evidence of collusion, what more proof do we need?

And like the amateur he is, Obama made Candy repeat herself “a little louder this time.” (“You never saw me go near the deck of cards right?”) And the intrepid journalist obediently wagged her tail and stood up on her hind legs on command. I was disappointed Obama did not give her a puppy treat; she definitely earned one.

On a related note, a friend asked: Is CNN’s Candy Crowley related to Satanist Aleister Crowley?

We report. You decide.

Two Weddings and a VP Debate

This probably isn’t as sinister as it sounds, but it sure seems bizarre.

The liberal media/politician/bureaucrat revolving door spins so rapidly, sometimes it’s hard to keep pace. Today we learn via the Daily Caller that the moderator for tomorrow’s vice presidential debate, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz, hosted President Obama as a guest at her 1991 wedding to the man who would later become Obama’s FCC commissioner, Julius Genachowski.

That’s shocking enough in its own right but things are further compounded by the fact that ABC News, home of veteran Democratic adviser George Stephanopoulos, has long known about this conflict of interest and did nothing about it. Even worse, the network has actively tried to prevent the public from learning of it.

So Radditz invited Obama to her wedding in 1991. I suspect they didn’t even know each other, but he was at least a B-list celebrity in Liberal World when he was named President of the Harvard Law Review.

Elite liberals inviting minority mascots to their parties is par for the course—classic liberal pandering/tokenism. However, inviting a mascot to your own wedding seems to be taking the concept a Verrazano bridge too far.

But that’s only in the real world.

In Liberal World, Leonard Bernstein once threw a fund-raiser for the Black Panthers in his NYC penthouse digs. Mrs. Bernstein worried about the catering, unsure whether the Panthers would prefer Roquefort or Brie. Bernstein’s A-List guests kicked in big bucks to hobnob with these special guests who delivered an inspirational message about the Revolution and killing whitey, while a beaming Bernstein—then in his 60’s—said “I can dig it” over and over. (I guess an “Amen” or a “Hallelujah” after each applause line would have sounded ridiculous.) The Panthers collected the checks for their charity work and—to quote the vernacular of the day—promptly “split.” I don’t recall if Mrs. B’s cheese dilemma was ever resolved. It’s been many years since I read Tom Wolfe’s chronicle of that memorable dinner party in Radical Chic.

That Raddatz didn’t bother to disclose the fact that she knew Obama is also par for the course in Liberal Land. Remember that liberals, especially media liberals, sincerely believe that laws exist to protect enlightened liberals from the benighted masses and especially from evil conservatives. Since liberals are the epitome of all that’s right with the world, they don’t have to follow the rules like everyone else. That’s why liberals can say without irony that sexual harassment laws “backfired” when Clinton found himself hoist upon his bent petard.

This week, Ms. Raddatz will host the debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan. One wonders if Ms. Raddatz will be as fair a moderator as Jim Lehrer, who was viciously attacked for the crime of attempted impartiality toward Wascally Wepublicans.

Plus ça change in Liberal World, plus c’est la même chose. It’s an easy prediction that Ms. Raddatz will be much more pugilistic toward Congressman Ryan and will give Amtrack Joe the kid glove treatment. Civility in Liberal World is reserved for decent folk like the Black Panthers and Khalid Sheik Muhammad.

One hundred years ago, the London Times asked a number of public intellectuals to submit an essay for a special edition on the topic “What’s Wrong with the World.”

GK Chesterton replied:

Dear Sirs:
I am.
Very truly yours,
GK Chesterton

If the Times did a centennial survey, I’m fairly sure President Obama would give the same answer… to a slightly different question: “What’s Right With the World?

Can you dig it!

Breadlines and Chocolate

Great news comrades! Fake US unemployment rate is down to 7.8%.

I haven’t read any “analysis” of the job numbers yet, but here’s what I know:

In general, the US needs to create at least 300,000 jobs per month just to maintain current unemployment levels. We need to create that many jobs in order to keep up with population growth and new graduates entering the available workforce pool in numbers higher than the number of retirees leaving the workforce.

Employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The September number was 86,000 lower than the August job numbers and the August numbers were lower than July’s.

Yet the “official” unemployment rate went down three-tenths of a point to 7.8%.

Does this even remotely make sense?

Three numbers—dates actually—come to mind: 1936, 1948 and 1984.

1936:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt is running for reelection as the Great Depression entered its eighth year.

Roosevelt won reelection in a landslide against a wealthy moderate Republican businessman turned governor who ran a lackluster uninspired campaign marked by bickering between the nominee and his conservative running mate and primary opponent, Frank Knox.

Despite persistent high unemployment, the majority of voters, conditioned by eight years of double-digit unemployment, began to believe the economy was finally turning around. There was evidence for optimism. Deficit spending on New Deal make-work programs leading up to the 1936 elections, helped bring down the unemployment rate to 13.7%.

But the salutary effect of Roosevelt’s spending binge was short-lived. The following year, Roosevelt tried a “balanced” approach of spending cuts and tax increases in an effort to reduce the national debt, which had doubled to 40% of GNP under his leadership. The result was a sharp economic downturn during the next two years—a Great Recession within the Great Depression, as unemployment spiked to 19.0% in 1938.

1948:
George Orwell’s futuristic dystopia 1984 is written. 1984’s protagonist, Winston Smith, works in the Ministry of Truth for the government of Oceania. His job is to rewrite old newspaper articles to ensure that the historical record would conform to the totalitarian dictatorship of Big Brother’s ever-changing propaganda announcements and official statistics.

Early on in the book, Smith is tasked to write a propaganda piece about a grateful nation thanking Big Brother for increasing the weekly chocolate ration to 20 grams. He has a moment of self-doubt in his ability to pull off this propaganda feat. Because less than a week earlier, he’d written a similar piece about how the people wildly cheered when Big Brother announced that the weekly chocolate ration would never be reduced below 30 grams. (To put this in context, a regular size Hershey bar is 43 grams.)

Winston Smith writes the propaganda piece as directed. The previous week’s article is flushed down the memory hole to an incinerator so that not even ashes remain. Smith is shocked to discover that no one—besides himself—mentions or even seems to notice the glaring contradiction.

“But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty’s figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connection with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty’s forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at one-hundred-and-forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been over-fulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than one-hundred-and-forty-five millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain.”

1984 vs. 1Q84:
I recently finished reading Haruki Murakami’s trilogy 1Q84. The book’s title is a pun based on Orwell’s 1984 since the Japanese word for the number nine is a homonym for the letter Q. The story takes place in Tokyo in the year 1984. As the novel progresses, the protagonist, a young woman named Aomame, begins noticing both subtle differences and jarring discrepancies between what she experiences and her memory. These unsettling cognitive dissonances suggest she is not in her normal 1984 world, but in a not-quite parallel world she names 1Q84.

Another character in 1Q94, a writer named Tengo, also experiences similar unsettling paradoxes between perception and reality or between perception and memory. While riding on a train to another town, he reads a story called The Town of Cats about a young man riding a train who gets off at an unfamiliar stop. The next train passes and does not stop, the next one doesn’t stop either. He goes into town and finds it still functioning, yet completely abandoned. There are sidewalks, buildings and shops, but no people to be found. When the last train fails to stop, the young man has no choice but to spend the night in the abandoned town. As the sun starts goes down, cats of all different breeds and colors, but much larger than ordinary cats, begin to arrive in the town and being nocturnal, go about their business in the dark town. The frightened traveler hides in a clock tower until the next morning when the cats vanish as mysteriously as they arrived. When the train comes the next morning, curiousity overcomes him and he decides to stay another day in the town of cats. The next night, the cats notice his scent and the discovery drives them into a frenzy. They look for him everywhere, but morning comes just in time before finding his hiding place. On the third day, the train does not stop.

This is no town of cats, he finally realizes. It is the place where he was meant to be lost. It is a place not of this world that has been prepared especially for him. And never again, for all eternity, will the train stop at this station to bring him back to his original world.

Aomame and Tengo discover clues along the way as they struggle to escape the 1Q84 world. Very early on, a Tokyo cab driver says to Aomame: “Don’t let appearances fool you. There’s always only one reality.”

I could relate to Aomame’s and Tengo’s experiences. I feel a similar cognitive dissonance and confusion each time these BLS numbers are released.

October 5, 2012: On this day, a grateful nation thanks President Obama for his steadfast leadership that brought our nation’s unemployment rate down to 7.8%. We must continue to support the President who works so hard each day for the American people. We must never go back to the failed George W. Bush policies of $1.83 per gallon gasoline prices and 4.7% unemployment.

Orwell is dead, but Big Brother is alive and well. And we are trapped in a world very different from the one we knew. The existential question for us is will we find our way back to the real world in time? Or are we destined to remain trapped forever in the year 2Q12 in an abandoned country despoiled by rats.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
—George Orwell, 1984

But don’t let appearances fool you. There’s always only one reality, and reality doesn’t change no matter what the numbers appear to show.

I could be wrong…

… but I think Donald Trump had the right idea from the beginning on how Romney should respond to Harry Reid on the tax return “issue.”

I suspect both sides’ internals show the opposite of the skewed sample media polls. That would explain the Democrats’ desperate attacks and Mitt’s do nothing strategy. The first rule of politics is when your opponent is digging a hole, stay out of the way. Or maybe Romney’s strategy is a variant of George Constanza’s rule for success: do the opposite of what your opponents and their media allies tell you to do. Let them continue beating a dead horse until they look ridiculous. This satirical masterpiece from The Onion drives home the point.

The downside is the people who get it probably weren’t voting for Obama anyway, so this preposterous claim could actually net Obama a few undecided (i.e., uninformed) votes.

I know discretion is the better part of valor and all that, but man, I wish we’d go for the jugular sometime.

Here’s a first draft at the Mitt rebuttal speech I’d like to hear.

“First of all, there is no law requiring anyone to make their tax returns public. However, I understand that we expect greater disclosure of presidential candidates and I’m prepared to release my tax returns for the last 10 years. I believe in full disclosure; presidential nominees from both parties should be fully vetted. Failing to do so, even with the best of intentions, is a disservice to the American people. Never again should a national party nominate for the nation’s highest office a candidate with so many secrets, so many unanswered questions about his past.

“I find it curious that this president and his party are basing so much of the case for his reelection on my tax returns. One would think we had bigger issues to worry about. I find it ironic that they’re so insistent that I release my tax records when the President hasn’t released his Occidental college school records, his Columbia school records, his Harvard Law School records, his college thesis, his published law review articles, his SAT scores, his LSAT scores, his medical records, even a certified copy of his actual birth certificate. Every other Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate in the modern era has made these records public. President Bush released his grades and SAT scores. Vice President Gore and Senator Kerry released theirs as well. But this president won’t release his. Doesn’t that seem a bit odd?

“In fact, he’s spent over $4 million on legal fees fighting against disclosure of these documents. Now he and I can afford to spend that kind of money, but why would someone spend $4 million to keep his personal records hidden? Particularly someone who campaigned on transparency, another empty promise that today appears as hollow as the “Hope and Change” slogan he sold to the American people four years ago.

“The other day, the Senate Majority Leader of his party said—on the floor of the US Senate no less—that I didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years. This is a bold and brazen LIE. My tax records will show: one, I made a lot of money; two, I gave a lot of money to charity; and three, I paid every cent I owe in taxes. You know, I actually feel sorry for Harry. Because if he is capable of shame, then he must feel terribly ashamed to serve as the instrument of such a smear. And if he doesn’t feel shame, then he is to be pitied even more.

“Now I understand the President’s and his party’s motive—they’re desperate. They know this president can’t run on his record, because his record is one of unmitigated disaster and epic failure. Even he must realize this or else he would not sanction such desperate and sleazy tactics.

“Throughout our history, incumbent presidents seeking reelection have proudly run on their records. But this president is running away from his record, and what a record it is:
• 42 consecutive months of unemployment at or over 8% (15% when you include people who’ve given up looking for work altogether)
• a stalled economy, with no semblance of leadership and no plan for turning things around
• a cynical and confused foreign policy that bows before foreign leaders, lectures and insults our best allies and appeases and emboldens our worst enemies
• a proposed budget that was rejected unanimously by the same Senate his party controls
• his signature accomplishment—a 2,700 healthcare bill that the American people opposed and many of his own supporters sought and received exemptions from
• record job losses
• record deficits
• adding $5 trillion to the national debt in just three years, and lastly
• the credit rating of the US downgraded for the first time in history.

“All on this president’s watch. This is his record and it isn’t pretty. No wonder he’s running away from it as fast as he can run.

“Well Mr. President, in the famous words of Joe Louis, ‘you can run, but you can’t hide.’

“Here’s the deal. I’ll release my tax returns when you release your school records.

“Or as they say in Chicago, ‘put up or shut up.’“

H/t to The Donald for the basic idea. The “speech” literally wrote itself on my computer tonight.

Counterfeit Sports Collectibles: A National Security Issue?

This stuff makes my head explode.

Federal agents raid Patapsco Flea Market

Capping a lengthy investigation into counterfeit and pirated merchandise, including the allegedly illegal use of a major sports apparel trademark, federal Homeland Security Investigations agents on Sunday raided the Patapsco Flea Market and confiscated numerous items being sold there.

Nicole Navas, a public affairs specialist with the Department of Homeland Security, said sports apparel, musical recordings and cosmetics were among the items under scrutiny in the 2 1/2-year-long investigation.

Think about this: a 2 1/2 year-long federal Homeland Security investigation into unlicensed sports merchandise. How exactly is this a national security issue?

The justification for the raid is provided by a Under Armour, a local manufacturer of licensed sports apparel:

“Individuals who produce and sell counterfeit goods harm the American economy. The reality of counterfeiting is that it’s much greater than just buying a knock off item at a discounted price, it’s a multibillion dollar a year problem that undermines corporations.”

Right, but how is this “multibillion dollar a year problem that undermines corporations” a national security problem? Sounds like an industry problem to me. After all, shoplifting is a multibillion dollar a year problem for retailers, but that doesn’t mean Walmart and Target should be allowed to forego the expense of hiring security guards when BATF or DHS agents can handle the work instead.

I already know the industry response. Even though laws exist to protect intellectual property owners from piracy, existing remedies and enforcement tools are expensive and ineffective to stop most violations. In other words, government failure to enforce existing laws is used to justify further expansion of government authority and regulation over the lives of citizens and taxpayers. In what other sphere of human affairs, is abysmal failure and gross incompetence so often rewarded? (I meant this as a rhetorical question, but then I remembered that Keith Olbermann was back on ABC’s This Week.)

Next time you’re at the ballpark, won’t you feel safer knowing that your tax dollars are being spent keeping the world safe from the imminent threat of unlicensed sports apparel? Silly me to think there might be greater threat to our national security than the possibility of sitting next to some stranger at Camden Yards wearing a knockoff Derek Jeter No. 2 jersey.

Meanwhile, next time you visit Baltimore, this could happen to you. Unfortunately, the victim of this horrific assault and thousands of others like him who’ve been brutalized by flash mobs this year (Bush’s fault of course) cannot afford the lobbyists necessary to persuade our elected officials to use government resources for say police protection rather than catering to corporations facing a “multibillion dollar a year piracy problem.”

Or maybe it’s just a matter of priorities in these “difficult economic times.” (Is it racist to say that?) Perhaps an occasional racially-motivated beating/public humiliation is a small price to pay for safeguarding our precious freedom to buy licensed sports apparel industry.

As Patrick Henry so eloquently put it, “Give me overpriced sports memorabilia AND give me Death!”