Editor’s Note: This list post was first published here. It’s presented as part of NewsReal Blog Weekend Double Feature. This afternoon we’ll also be republishing Walter’s list post on the conservative themes of Star Wars, the original of which can be read here.

Science fiction affords storytellers the opportunity to couch political ideas within fantastic metaphors. In this way, ideas can be explored which might otherwise seem objectionable. In some cases, an audience might not consciously realize they are being influenced to think a certain way.

Perhaps the greatest example of science fiction writing which has pushed a particular ideology upon the popular culture is Star Trek. Over the course of nearly five decades, the brand has expanded from televisions series into feature films, countless books, fan conventions, and mounts of merchandise.

Why has Star Trek been so popular? Creator Gene Roddenberry attributed the original series’ success to the philosophy it espoused.

The whole show was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but to take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. We tried to say that the worst possible thing that can happen to all of us is for the future to somehow press us into a common mould, where we begin to act and talk and look and think alike. If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there. And I think that this is what people responded to.

Ironically, this multicultural meme leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tolerating every idea enables ideas which are destructive. As the franchise has progressed, it has (perhaps unwittingly) demonstrated this flaw in its own message.

Next: The United Nations in space…

It’s been many years since I watched the 1960 Academy Award winning epic Spartacus, spiritual predecessor to Ridley Scott’s rousing Gladiator. I don’t recall every detail. However, I do remember that much referenced scene toward the end.

Roman soldiers have finally routed a ragtag army of rebel slaves led by Kirk Douglas’ title character. The Romans offer to spare the defeated mob, and return them to their lives of slavery, if they will only give up their leader. As Spartacus rises to offer himself up for his men, one of them leaps to his feet.

I’m Spartacus!

Then another arises. And another. Soon the entire mob is risen, all contending to be the leader their enemy seeks.

A similar moment is called for in aid of besieged Republicans in Wisconsin. As The Huffington Post reports, conservatives are ill-prepared to fight back against the enraged union-fed beast they successfully stung earlier this week.

Both national and Wisconsin-based Republican operatives tell the Huffington Post the party is being dramatically outworked and out-organized by Democrats in the recall campaigns being launched against state Senators.

The operatives, who raised their concerns out of hope it would jar the GOP into assertiveness, argue complacency has taken over after Governor Scott Walker successfully shepherded his anti-collective bargaining bill into law. While the Wisconsin Democratic Party, with major assists from progressive groups and unions, has harnessed resentment towards the governor into a full-throttled effort to recall eight GOP Senators, neither the enthusiasm nor organizational acumen exists on the Republican side of the aisle(…)

Democracy for America, the group started by Howard Dean following his failed 2004 election, said it has raised nearly $800,000 to run ads and help with the recall campaign, which communications director Levana Layendecker described as “unprecedented for a non-election year issue.” In addition, 2,500 volunteers have signed up with DFA to help gather signatures. The group, with 25,000 members in Wisconsin alone, expects that number to only grow.

Combine this with the tepid political theater taking place in Washington D.C. over pitifully insubstantial budget cuts, and you have a picture of a Republican party repeating its own miserable history. Bold action is required. Republicans must demand serious and lasting reforms which will make a real difference to our long-term fiscal health. The victory won by Scott Walker and Wisconsin Republicans will be short-lived if the rest of the country does not man up and join the fight.

Consider, while the Wisconsin Democrats are coordinating the recall effort in their state, they are empowered by forces outside it. Democracy for America and MoveOn.org are only two of the many organizations among the Shadow Party.

What conservatives need to do is stand up nationwide now and follow Walker’s lead in every state where they hold power. We need to see monopolistic public employee collective bargaining targeted everywhere, all at the same time. For once, we need to take a page out of the leftist playbook and overwhelm their system. Recall efforts in Wisconsin won’t have as much chance to succeed if the national groups supporting them are suddenly called to fires in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio. The time has come to rise and shout, “I’m Wisconsin!”

Yes, I know how Spartacus ended. After the credits, so too did the Empire.

It was only a matter of time. I’m surprised it took this long. Michael Moore has finally added his shrill voice to the cacophony of thugs in Wisconsin.

“Right now the Earth is shaking and the ground is shifting under the feet of those who are in charge,” said Moore…

“America is not broke … Wisconsin is not broke,” Moore said. “The only thing that’s broke is the moral compass of the rulers(…)”

Repeatedly saying “America is not broke,” Moore said “the country is awash in wealth and cash … It has been transferred in the greatest heist in history from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich.”

Despite Wall Street bailouts shortly after the recession began in 2008, “millions lost their jobs anyway, and millions lost their homes,” Moore said.

“But there was no revolt … until now…”

As usual, Moore is all over the philosophical map, weaving non sequitur into a net of lies. His overarching tactic remains the same as it has always been, to represent black as white, up as down, left as right, and good as evil. In fact, you can fairly well predict what Moore will say about anything by taking the truth and stating the opposite.

Let’s start with his description of duly elected public servants like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Moore has made no bones about his status as a communist revolutionary. He pines for the radical transformation of America at any cost. From that position, “those who are in charge” are evil, because they are in charge. Nevermind how they acquired power. Though elected, they are “rulers,” a term which implies unjust or unrightful authority. This is a theme in all of Moore’s commentary. What is rightful is unrightful. What is just is unjust.

It is particularly ironic that Moore would refer to elected servants as “rulers” when unjust rule is precisely what he advocates. Last week, he told GRITtv that wealth does not belong to the individuals who earn it. Rather, it is “a natural resource.” This view advocates injustice, taking that to which you have no rightful claim to redistribute it arbitrarily. Could there be a more apropos description of tyrannical rule?

As he did in Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore misrepresents the federal bailouts as capitalism. This is an egregious rhetorical sin. What were the bailouts if not redistribution of wealth? They represent the very socialism Moore craves.

This point is where Moore’s rant fully leaves the tracks. What are the union protesters in Wisconsin demanding if not a bailout? They demand above market compensation, unsustainable benefits, and monopolistic advantage with which to secure the same. By evoking bailouts and connoting them negatively, Moore unwittingly argues against public employee unions. Hilariously, the lemmings in his audience cheer him on.

In this address to union protesters, as in virtually all his public comments, Moore describes the world in terms precisely opposite of reality. Elected officials are “rulers.” Bailouts are “capitalism.” Private property is “a natural resource.” And union members are “workers,” implying taxpayers are somehow not.

Moore is right about one thing. The clash in Wisconsin is a revolt. Whether it resolves in favor of workers at-large, or in favor of a protected class of monopolistic union thugs, is yet to be seen.

This popular post was originally published March 3, 2011.

The last time NewsRealBlog checked in on Natalie Portman, the actress was selling some new, decidedly-PC ideas about sex and love. But since her appearance at the Academy Awards accepting the Best Actress award for Black Swan, Portman has found herself on the other side of the feminist divide. LifeNews.com reports that part of her speech didn’t sit well with everyone:

After thanking fellow nominees, her parents, and the directors past and present who guided her career, Portman saved her concluding praise for “my beautiful love,” dancer and choreographer Benjamin Millepied.

Then, as if to underscore how the bright and promising career and the accolades she’s received up to that very moment paled in comparison, a visibly pregnant Portman thanked Millepied for giving her “the most important role of my life.”

The problem, according to Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams:

“At the time, the comment jarred me, as it does every time anyone refers to motherhood as the most important thing a woman can possibly do,” she wrote today. “But the reason why didn’t hit until I saw the ever razor sharp Lizzie Skurnick comment on Twitter today that, ‘Like, my garbageman could give you your greatest role in life, too, lady.’”

“When you’re pregnant, especially for the first time, there are a lot of amazed and awed moments in between the heartburn and insomnia. But is motherhood really a greater role than being secretary of state or a justice on the Supreme Court? Is reproduction automatically the greatest thing Natalie Portman will do with her life?” Williams wondered […]

“Why, at the pinnacle of one’s professional career, would a person feel the need to undercut it by announcing that there’s something else even more important? Even if you feel that way, why downplay your achievement?” a clearly befuddled Williams writes.

“Why compare the two, as if a grueling acting role and being a parent were somehow in competition? And remind me — when was the last time a male star gave an acceptance speech calling fatherhood his biggest role?

Yes, how dare Portman celebrate bringing a child into the world? Doesn’t she realize that ignorant political lectures are the only non-industry topics allowed by Hollywood etiquette at major functions?

We could go on at length discussing the importance of parenthood, and how raising the next generation really is the greatest role anyone could undertake, but our Feminist Hawks and family crusaders have covered that territory pretty well; here let’s instead turn the question around and ask Williams: what is it about a great film performance that even comes close to the value of raising children? Do movies teach the young, heal the sick, or protect the weak? Do they make society better? What do they contribute to ensuring a freer, safer, more just, or more prosperous future?

Answer: not bloody much. Now, there’s nothing wrong with pure entertainment, but that’s all it is—entertainment. And while film can be a venue for spreading immortal truths and valuable ideas, more often than not it’s simply vehicles for leftism.

It seems that Natalie Portman’s real sin was, however innocently, revealing that elite left-wing culture isn’t the center of the world. LifeNews’s Steven Ertelt is correct to point out that Williams seems “unable to get past self,” and quotes Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright as cutting to the heart of the issue:

The selflessness of motherhood is the antithesis of Hollywood narcissism.

The last time NewsRealBlog checked in on Natalie Portman, the actress was selling some new, decidedly-PC ideas about sex and love. But since her appearance at the Academy Awards accepting the Best Actress award for Black Swan, Portman has found herself on the other side of the feminist divide. LifeNews.com reports that part of her speech didn’t sit well with everyone:

After thanking fellow nominees, her parents, and the directors past and present who guided her career, Portman saved her concluding praise for “my beautiful love,” dancer and choreographer Benjamin Millepied.

Then, as if to underscore how the bright and promising career and the accolades she’s received up to that very moment paled in comparison, a visibly pregnant Portman thanked Millepied for giving her “the most important role of my life.”

The problem, according to Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams:

“At the time, the comment jarred me, as it does every time anyone refers to motherhood as the most important thing a woman can possibly do,” she wrote today. “But the reason why didn’t hit until I saw the ever razor sharp Lizzie Skurnick comment on Twitter today that, ‘Like, my garbageman could give you your greatest role in life, too, lady.’”

“When you’re pregnant, especially for the first time, there are a lot of amazed and awed moments in between the heartburn and insomnia. But is motherhood really a greater role than being secretary of state or a justice on the Supreme Court? Is reproduction automatically the greatest thing Natalie Portman will do with her life?” Williams wondered […]

“Why, at the pinnacle of one’s professional career, would a person feel the need to undercut it by announcing that there’s something else even more important? Even if you feel that way, why downplay your achievement?” a clearly befuddled Williams writes.

“Why compare the two, as if a grueling acting role and being a parent were somehow in competition? And remind me — when was the last time a male star gave an acceptance speech calling fatherhood his biggest role?

Yes, how dare Portman celebrate bringing a child into the world? Doesn’t she realize that ignorant political lectures are the only non-industry topics allowed by Hollywood etiquette at major functions?

We could go on at length discussing the importance of parenthood, and how raising the next generation really is the greatest role anyone could undertake, but our Feminist Hawks and family crusaders have covered that territory pretty well; here let’s instead turn the question around and ask Williams: what is it about a great film performance that even comes close to the value of raising children? Do movies teach the young, heal the sick, or protect the weak? Do they make society better? What do they contribute to ensuring a freer, safer, more just, or more prosperous future?

Answer: not bloody much. Now, there’s nothing wrong with pure entertainment, but that’s all it is—entertainment. And while film can be a venue for spreading immortal truths and valuable ideas, more often than not it’s simply vehicles for leftism.

It seems that Natalie Portman’s real sin was, however innocently, revealing that elite left-wing culture isn’t the center of the world. LifeNews’s Steven Ertelt is correct to point out that Williams seems “unable to get past self,” and quotes Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright as cutting to the heart of the issue:

The selflessness of motherhood is the antithesis of Hollywood narcissism.

Dana Loesch shatters conservative stereotypes.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the best idea always won the day? Unfortunately, it often doesn’t. The best idea, poorly presented, is easily passed over.

Conservatives aren’t known for our presentation. We’re still talking about Ronald Reagan, and looking for the next Great Communicator. But even if we find him or her, that means we’re averaging one every thirty or forty years. That’s not a winning track record.

We must each become great communicators in our own right. The way to do so is to set aside our great ideas for a moment, and start focusing on telling better stories. Reagan excelled at this because of his background in Hollywood, where tales are spun with a focus upon building an audience.

PJTV’s Bill Whittle and Andrew Klavan share that background. They also share the sound conservative ideals which must be transmuted through effective presentation. We caught up with them and Joe Hicks after the three delivered a powerful symposium at the Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit.

NRB: We have to direct our energy toward the culture. Politics spawns from what we think, what we believe, what we talk about. The Left is every good at the human interest story. They’re very good at crafting the narrative of the person who’s down and out.

I’m talking to the choir. You guys are responding to that. You are countering that right now. How would you advise, not just the Tea Party, but conservatives in general to ease away from all the analysis we’re constantly doing, the fact-talking, and start getting more into telling the stories that change people’s minds?

Andrew Klavan: I think the only way to do it is to do it –

Bill Whittle: That’s exactly right. That’s exactly what I was going to say.

Klavan: I’ve had this conversation with Andrew Breitbart who was always telling people to infiltrate Hollywood. And I just thought, don’t infiltrate Hollywood. Write your own screenplays –

Whittle: Start to build a parallel Hollywood –

Klavan: And be fearless. The thing is, I think, if you’re trying to duck under the radar, you’re gonna get shot down. I think you just walk in and just say who you are –

Whittle: And construct your own narratives. We did a piece called Iconography about how the Left uses lighting and stagecraft and graphics so beautifully, and the Republicans are just so awful at it.

I had a chance to talk with [House Speaker John] Boehner in L.A. a couple weeks ago. I said, “Listen, Paul Ryan’s rebuttal to the State of the Union speech was brilliant. But he was in a dark room surrounded by empty chairs. He looked like he was in a bunker and he was last man on Earth who believed this stuff.” I said, “You have to do better than that, sir. You have to…”

Next: We asked the same question of Big Journalism Editor-in-Chief and radio talk show personality Dana Loesch…

Just because you did good work on a great movie does not mean your political opinions matter. Somebody should have told that to cinematographer Wally Pfister before he accepted Inception’s Academy Award for Best Cinematography; that way we might have been spared a lecture about Wisconsin’s horribly oppressed unions. Jim Hoft has the scoop on Pfister’s acceptance speech shout-out to his union crew, and his backstage elaboration:

“I think that what is going on in Wisconsin is kind of madness right now,” Pfister says. “I have been a union member for 30 years and what the union has given to me is security for my family. They have given me health care in a country that doesn’t provide health care and I think unions are a very important part of the middle class in America all we are trying to do is get a decent wage and have medical care.”

Actually, the country has given you health care, and a whole lot more. It’s given you a wage that’s much better than “decent” and the opportunity to work on movies and accept awards for them. What you really mean is that the government hasn’t provided healthcare (there’s a reason for that which has nothing to do with its heartlessness: widespread government healthcare doesn’t work).

And considering that only 6.9% of private-sector workers belong to a union, the average American isn’t getting that decent wage or medical care from one (dare I suggest they might be getting them from evil businessmen like the Koch brothers?). So much for being “a very important part of the middle class.”

In fact, Pfister’s workers are all private-sector, which means their kind of union wouldn’t even be affected by anything Scott Walker has proposed. Walker’s budget repair bill is strictly geared toward reining in the benefits of government employees…benefits that will still be better than many in the private sector.

Alexander Marlow tries to explain the difference to Pfister:

Hollywood unions bargain with corporations that have money they have earned by making movies like “Memento,” “Batman Begins,” “The Prestige,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Inception” (just to name a few Pfister has worked on personally), and unions collectively bargain to get a greater share of the revenue.  Governments, on the other hand, don’t earn anything; they extract taxes from citizens, many of whom have fallen on tough financial times.  Pfister’s union crew bargains with the capitalists that have a stake in the outcome of the negotiation, a vested interest in reaching a reasonable agreement with the unions – their bottom line depends on it.  Governments, on the other hand, have no such bottom line to worry about (see: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).  In Wisconsin, the unions are trying to strong-arm politicians (many of whom are bankrolled by the unions come campaign time) in order to pad their pension fund with tax dollars, all at the direct expense of the state’s fiscal health.

Hollywood unions bargain with corporations for the corporations’ money; in Wisconsin, they’re bargaining with union-backed politicians for the taxpayers’ money.  It’s one thing to add to the Warner Brothers’ tab; it’s quite another to add to the citizens’.

Typical of the leftist mind, Wally Pfister doesn’t speak from any discernible measure of economic knowledge or familiarity with Wisconsin’s fiscal issues, but purely from emotion. I like these guys, so I’m just gonna support whoever’s supposedly got their back and perceive anything to the contrary as a personal attack on them, regardless of whether or not they’re actually harmed. But who cares if you know what you’re talking about, right? It’s the thought that counts!

The only “madness” here is in thinking the uninformed critiques of filmmakers have any importance to public policy. Let’s make a deal: Scott Walker won’t tell Hollywood how to make movies, and moviemakers won’t tell governors how to run states.

This popular post was first published on February 21 here.

I have been following the developements in Madison over the past few days with dismay. I am very upset about the pure hate many consevatives have been spewing towards Wisconsen teachers protesting Governor Walkers union busting tactics. I take this personally because I am part of the Madison Wisconsen Sweet Valley High School graduating class of 1990.

I got a qualitie education in Madisen. The teachers were top notch. They cared about me 1st and there well being second. When my teacher called in sick I was pretty sure it was because she was sick. Almost all my teachers never carried a flask. And those that did told me that they had filled it with Yoo-Hoo.

As you know, certain moments you share with teachers in high school you remember for the wrest of you’re life. I remember my 9th grade history teacher, Mrs. Fauxcher. After about a month of  hearing how America was discovered and eventually colonized by white devils, I had a question about Christopher Columbus.

Mrs. Fauxcher told me to grab a cucumber like my other classmates so she could show me how to properlie put on a condom. At the time I thought it was stupid, since all Madisen public school students learn how to put on a condom in the 2nd grade. But she was right about columbus and condoms. That allways stuck with me.

Fast forward 20 years later and Governer Walker is throwing around all sorts or ridiculous demands. He wants teachers to pay 6% of they’re pay towards there pensions and pay 12% of they’re health care benefits. Follow me on this because I know that numbers are confusing. That’s allmost 32% of they’re income. Why does Walker hate teachers. Is it because he only wants rich people to have money.

I will stay silent know more. I want my fellow Madisen Sweet Valley High alums to speak out to. I am specifically urging  Dustin Diamond, Linda Lavin, Dana Plato, Snooki and Kathy Griffin to come out against Walkers attack on unions and public schools.

A public school education got me ware I am today. So I thank you Madisen teachers. God bless you all!

*Relax, this is satire people…

Fingers hosts The Snark Factor Radio Program on FTR Radio. His website can be found at FingersMalloy.com. Follow Fingers on Twitter here.

Photo credit Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Every once in a while, leftists inadvertently reveal that they understand economics better than they let on…when it’s their own bottom line that’s at stake. Today, the AP reports that Hollywood isn’t taking kindly to a new Indonesian tax on non-Indonesian films:

The MPAA has responded by saying that last week’s release of Oscar- nominated “Black Swan” could be the last for a Hollywood film in this nation of 237 million. Distributors from Europe and Asia have made similar warnings.

Film-lovers have taken to social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter to complain, while the country’s largest cinema chain begged Monday for the government to drop the tax.

“We’ll see theatres close one by one unless a solution is found,” warned Noorca Massardie, spokesman of 21 Cineplex, which has more than 500 screens.

Studios participating in the boycott include Paramount Pictures, Sonny Pictures Entertainment, Walt Disney Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox Film, Warner Bros Entertainment and Universal Pictures, leaving Indonesian movie fans gasping.

They spend an estimated $6.2 million a month at theatres.

Now, Indonesia is certainly within its rights to levy such a tax if it so chooses, and studios are well within their rights to only distribute their films in venues with the best potential for profit. It’s their product, their business, and their money at stake. (And I’m sorry to disappoint the outraged woman quoted as saying “they’re taking away our right to watch high-quality films,” but no such right exists. Nobody has a “right” to be given a good or service created or owned by someone else.)

But has it ever occurred to the socialism-espousing, Democrat-supporting actors who star in those films that this is the same kind of decision most other businesses face every day, thanks in part to the high taxes and meddlesome government regulation they support, which make some states more welcoming business environments than others? What makes Disney, Fox and Sony any less evil and greedy than Dodge, Exxon and Microsoft?

Answer: nothing. All businesses are out to make money, and there’s no shame in that. They do it by making and providing things we want or need, and they create jobs in the process. Alec Baldwin and Angelina Jolie might think Hollywood is somehow better because it creates “art” and disseminates Very Important Messages, but the truth is that what Hollywood churns out these days is hardly essential, especially when compared to, say, cars, laptops, oil, and medical innovations.

It’s long past time for Hollywood to get off its high horse, recognize that it’s part of Big Business too, and stop demonizing other companies for routinely making the same decisions, for the same reasons, as they do.

I have been following the developements in Madison over the past few days with dismay. I am very upset about the pure hate many consevatives have been spewing towards Wisconsen teachers protesting Governor Walkers union busting tactics. I take this personally because I am part of the Madison Wisconsen Sweet Valley High School graduating class of 1990.

I got a qualitie education in Madisen. The teachers were top notch. They cared about me 1st and there well being second. When my teacher called in sick I was pretty sure it was because she was sick. Almost all my teachers never carried a flask. And those that did told me that they had filled it with Yoo-Hoo.

As you know, certain moments you share with teachers in high school you remember for the wrest of you’re life. I remember my 9th grade history teacher, Mrs. Fauxcher. After about a month of  hearing how America was discovered and eventually colonized by white devils, I had a question about Christopher Columbus.

Mrs. Fauxcher told me to grab a cucumber like my other classmates so she could show me how to properlie put on a condom. At the time I thought it was stupid, since all Madisen public school students learn how to put on a condom in the 2nd grade. But she was right about columbus and condoms. That allways stuck with me.

Fast forward 20 years later and Governer Walker is throwing around all sorts or ridiculous demands. He wants teachers to pay 6% of they’re pay towards there pensions and pay 12% of they’re health care benefits. Follow me on this because I know that numbers are confusing. That’s allmost 32% of they’re income. Why does Walker hate teachers. Is it because he only wants rich people to have money.

I will stay silent know more. I want my fellow Madisen Sweet Valley High alums to speak out to. I am specifically urging  Dustin Diamond, Linda Lavin, Dana Plato, Snooki and Kathy Griffin to come out against Walkers attack on unions and public schools.

A public school education got me ware I am today. So I thank you Madisen teachers. God bless you all!

*Relax, this is satire people…

Fingers hosts The Snark Factor Radio Program on FTR Radio. His website can be found at FingersMalloy.com. Follow Fingers on Twitter here.

Photo credit Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

What’s that old saying? Birds of a feather flock together. If so, we might be inclined to wonder what binds bombastic Hollywood fraud Michael Moore to Egyptian revolutionaries and the public union protesters in Wisconsin.

Moore relayed ]]> http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/21/michael-moore-plays-matchmaker-between-wisconsin-protestors-and-egyptian-revolutionaries/feed/ 0 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/21/the-price-is-wrong-childish-word-games-from-the-left/ http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/21/the-price-is-wrong-childish-word-games-from-the-left/#comments Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:00:22 +0000 Walter Hudson http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=119188

As the father of a two-year-old, I have several opportunities to watch animated films. Now playing in the Hudson home is last year’s Despicable Me. The plot centers around a super-villain who adopts three young girls as part of his latest diabolical scheme. When he brings them home for the first time, he tells them not to touch anything. Intent upon getting under his skin, they ask him whether this rule applies to the floor and the air.

Such wordplay is common among children, who think themselves rather clever for finding a literal meaning contrary to a clear directive. Along with showboating grade school kids, the other group most inclined toward such behavior are leftists.

Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in a news segment for my local Fox affiliate. The topic was the funding of infrastructure. NPR put out a story called “Balancing The Budget: The Problem Might Be You.” Its thesis was that Americans want improvements to the country’s infrastructure, but are unwilling to pay for them with additional taxes. Hence, you – the American voter – are the reason we can’t balance the federal budget.

Of course, such is thesis is absurd on its face. There is no dichotomy between raising taxes and maintaining or improving infrastructure. Cuts can be made from areas of the budget which are a lower priority than infrastructure, and those funds can be reallocated.

Upon making this point during the segment, I was treated to a obfuscating rebuttal from Dane Smith, former journalist and current president of Growth & Justice - a leftist think tank working on public policy in Minnesota. Smith took issue with the notion that Americans, and Minnesotans in particular, are over-taxed. He evoked the term “price of government,” stating that this figure was lower in the state of Minnesota than it has been in years.

During the exchange, I was not sure what “price of government” was. However, it seemed clear that Smith was deviating from the question at hand. Respondents to the Rockefeller Foundation poll, which NPR had cited, indicated they were not interested in more taxes. NPR had strongly implied voters’ intransigence on taxes threatened improvements to infrastructure. The question was therefore: how do we fund infrastructure if people are not willing to pay more in taxes? Rather than answer that question, Smith disparaged  the taxpayer’s stance on higher taxes. Since the “price of government” had gone down in recent years, Smith argued that people’s sense of being taxed enough already was illegitimate.

It should come as no surprise that, when we examine what “price of government” is, we find public policy jargon concocted for the purpose of helping people like Smith argue for higher taxes. In most people’s minds, the terms “price” and “cost” are interchangeable. The cost of government is the amount we pay in taxes, fees, and charges to finance its operation. The “price of government” measure is that figure divided by “community income.” In other words, if community income goes up, and the “price of government” remains the same, the actual cost of government goes up.

This is a measure borne of the mindset which says, if I have $100, I can spend $100. Such a mindset is what sends you to the store for a loaf of bread, and brings you back with that plus $95 worth of junk you don’t need. This is not the mindset from which state’s, and the federal government, ought to be governed.

More to the point, this “price of government” measure is rhetorically deceptive, as it may go down while the actual cost of government goes up. It is a measure which argues for spending more, not because more is needed, but because there is more to spend. Nevermind how those dollars translate to actual value when accounting for inflation quantitative easing.

When children are told not to touch anything, they know full well what that means. Asking whether the rule applies to the floor is a bad joke at best. But kids are kids. Here we see an example of a grown adult using the same coy wordplay to pull the wool over taxpayers’ eyes.