Filk for a Food Fight!

[Context: My friends Anthony Clark and Kevin Ryan are hosting a combination "Iron Chef" competition and political debate for their old school, St Aidan's in Mineola.

I am for this, not just out of friendship, but because many years ago, when the world was new (that is, between college and law school), I appeared in a production of "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying" at the community theater St. Aidan's sponsored, and got do a great song, "The Company Way," even though I had a small part.
Here's the original of that, by the way:


So, here's the promo I wanted to make for the FoodFight for St. Aidan's, but alas, the two stars don't seem interested.]


Well, Did You EV-AH?

Scene: A well furnished library/study backstage at what is suspiciously like the 2012 Vice Presidential debates. There are comfy chairs, a sofa, a full wet bar, book-lined shelves, and, unfortunately, the occupants of the room can sometimes hear their VP ticketmates flub a line or argument.

Those occupants, by the way, are fictional. One, BARRY, is our first African-American President, but not the real one. He is tall and thin, with slightly projecting ears, and is cool and analytical in demeanor. Therefore, totally unlike Barack Obama, who does not feature in this work of complete fiction. His equally fictional adversary, MITTENS, is somewhat older, graying at the temples, but with the rangy build and quick smile of the venture capitalist, who hasn’t decided whether you’re an investor or lunch—fellow predator, or prey. Nothing, in short, like the avuncular and charming Mitt Romney, and aren’t we lucky to have such paragons running for President this year?
Alas, for the moment, we must leave behind this happy state of affairs, and go backstage in the well-appointed room I have sketched out for you (and in what reality is such a room backstage, anyway?)

The two men are, quite sensibly, ignoring each other. BARRY is in one of the comfy leather chairs reading a heavy tome titled, FORGING GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS: COLD WAR ERA; MITTENS is re-reading an old favorite HELLO, HE LIED: A PRIMER.

Something said in the debate, though by whom is unclear, ruffles BARRY. He looks at MITTENS, and the orchestra impels him:

BARRY: Do you think that it’s a plan,
National government by Ayn Rand?

MITTENS (bored): Well, did you ever?
(sings): Just the veepstakes, my friend…

They pause. Something is said offstage; MITTENS is visibly irritated.

MITTENS: That last line’s not just a crock—
Joe stole it straight from Neil Kinnock.

BARRY: Well, did you evah?
(speaks) Sometimes he goes with the classics, champ.

[Together]: Can’t the veepstakes just end?

MITTENS: It’s all just, too, too tedious.

BARRY: I feel you Mittens.
MITTENS: Isn’t there anything in the news?

BARRY [sings]: Have you heard, it’s in the Press
Ryan and Clark are gonna host a fress.

MITTENS: Well, did you evah! What a swell party that is!

MITTENS [checks his IPhone 4.9]: And did you know, they’ll debate the news,
cooking up dishes to amuse.

BARRY: Well, did you evah?
What a swell party that is.

MITTENS:
What meats! What fish!
All a redstater could wish!

BARRY: What veggies français!
Michelle'd call it OK!

BARRY This French
MITTENS (interjecting): Freedom!

BARRY (continuing) champagne,
too good, for the guy from Bain--

TOGETHER: We still won’t abstain
It’s all, too, too bipartisain—

TOGETHER-faster]: Have you heard out there on Mars, robots are flying stripes and stars!
Well, did you evah?
What a swell party this is

BARRY: And had you heard that the ACA
lived to fight another day!

MITTENS: Well, that's law (or politics!)
But what did Nino and Clarence say?

MITTENS: Buying tix is easy, though
BARRY: Just click the link right there below.
MITTENS: I might donate Rafalca’s medal…
BARRY: Didn’t you know--
MITTENS smiles; they both laugh.
TOGETHER: One thing’s clear
we all can cheer
St. Aidan’s Fundraising going on ‘round here
Well did you ever!

BARRY What a liberal
MITTENS: Business-like
BARRY: Community
MITTENS: investment—
TOGETHER: This is!

Forgive me Cole Porter, I knew not what I did. Don’t let it all be in vain—click the link and donate!

For the melody, and to check my lyrics, see this version:

Roger(s) That!

Here is John Rogers on Paul Ryan:

I'll defend to the death your right to have an opinion different from mine, but when you're just a mendacious hypocrite, well, life's too goddam short. Paul Ryan's family fortune was based on being paid by the government to build highways, he's never had a job other than "Congressman", none of his budget numbers add up -- at all -- and he's trying to push a budget that would raise taxes on the middle class, hand giant tax breaks to the rich, gut the country's infrastructure, and end Medicare -- which no matter what shit they sling at you is the plan because strangely, his plan doesn't apply to anybody over 55. Why not, if it's so awesome? Because old folk know bullshit when they smell it, that's why.

And why is he pursuing these policies? Because, well, "job creators."

You know what? I type for a living, and my stupid little typing creates a couple hundred jobs. I'm an actual job creator, which was the last damn thing anybody (including my perpetually surprised father) expected when I started telling jokes in bars. And I don't think that raising my tax rate by 3.4% (back the bad old Clinton Socialism Rate) so you, my fellow citizen, won't lose your fucking house when your kid gets cancer, or maybe we get a functioning power grid or roads that wouldn't be substandard in ZIMBABWE is "socialism". It's basic. Goddam. Decency.

Rogers, of course, coined the immortal, perfect, explanation of Ryan's long-time heart-throb, Ayn Rand:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Rogers, if by any chance you get over here, you and Leverage are kicking it in Season 5. Great work, great ride on the fun train.

Serving the Devil

with legal papers, I mean. How exactly would you do it?

Have you ever heard of the classic case United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff? This is, as we say on the Intertubes, a real thing in the world, a case in which a self-representing plaintiff (who was seeking to have court fees waived, and, possibly, appointed counsel, raised an interesting, and novel, legal claim: "He alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall. Plaintiff alleges that by reason of these acts Satan has deprived him of his constitutional rights."

OK, so, you're a federal judge. In addressing the complaint, especially back in 1971, when this little beauty was decided, you must assume all the facts in the complaint to be true. So, what to do? A puzzler for many judges, but not for Judge Weber of the Western District of Pennsylvania:

We feel that the application to file and proceed in forma pauperis must be denied. Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie recital of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time.

There's actually a record of the hearing in that case:



Tell us more, Judge Weber:

If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question of whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R. of Civ.P. 23 that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to the class, and the claims of the representative party is typical of the claims of the class. We cannot now determine if the representative party will fairly protect the interests of the class.
We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process.

The class action bit ("yeah. You and everybody else, chum") is good, but that last bit is especially rich--telling the plaintiff he must direct the Marshals on how to serve the Devil. Or, even better, go to him himself...

And what's the point in suing Satan's Staff? I'm pretty sure that the Boss keeps all the assets.

Magna Est Veritas!

A fair number of my friends have noted that I have a fair amount to say regarding Mitt Romney and his shall we call it a penchant for untruthfulness?, but what about Harry Reid, whose statements regarding Romney's payment of taxes, or rather non-payment thereof over a ten-year period, have been rated maximally false by both Politifact ("Pants on Fire" rating)and the Washington Post Fact-checker, Glenn Kessler (the much-dreaded "Four Pinochios")?

Well, here's the thing. The fact-checkers are simply unaware of the truth--or falsity--of the statements at issue, and so are you, and so am I.

Here is what Reid originally said:

"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.

Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.

"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?

"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

To lie, according to the OED, is "to make a false statement with the intention to deceive." (Other definitions at the link refine it, but are broadly consistent.) If Reid did have the conversation with his source, then he is not guilty of that. He may be guilty of suggestio falsi--here, by using a true statement that contains within it a statement he does not believe to be true, but which he honestly reports as having been made to him, but he is not lying. Indeed,even his critics tacitly acknowledge--they raise the bar, requiring him to prove not the conversation with the source, but the accuracy of the source's information.

As Kessler admits, "Reid has refused to provide any evidence, except for the (unproven) fact that someone called him up and told him something that may be true — or simply a rumor." (My emphasis.) Politifact hinges its analysis on the improbability (not impossibility!) of the information provided by Reid's source, as does Kessler. In other words, they hold him to the very part of the statement he said he could not vouch for--that Romney had literally paid no income tax for ten years.

What Harry Reid is guilty of is what my late grandfather would have called "dirty pool." He is upping the pressure on Romney to release the tax returns by a sort of low-level psy-op--almost a con trick. Note that Reid didn't just try to give the story legs, he attacked Romney emotionally, invoking his father. (Surprisingly, that part of Reid's attack didn't draw much condemnation.) It's manipulative. It's tricky. It may even include a lie.

Or not.

"Hello," He Lied

OK, so, has anybody seen Romney's latest ad?



As per the course, it's a blatant lie. A blatant lie, in that the Administration has announced that it is encouraging the states to devise programs of their own which will achieve the goals of TANF, "particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment." As the Administration explained:

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is interested in more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs that offer opportunities for earnings and advancement that will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits. The following are examples of projects that states may want to consider – these are illustrative only:
Projects that improve coordination with other components of the workforce investment system, including programs operated under the Workforce Investment Act, or to test an innovative approach to use performance-based contracts and management in order to improve employment outcomes.
Projects that demonstrate attainment of superior employment outcomes if a state is held accountable for negotiated employment outcomes in lieu of participation rate requirements.
Projects under which a state would count individuals in TANF-subsidized jobs but no longer receiving TANF assistance toward participation rates for a specified period of time in conjunction with an evaluation of the effectiveness of a subsidized jobs strategy.
Projects that improve collaboration with the workforce and/or post-secondary education systems to test multi-year career pathways models for TANF recipients that combine learning and work.
Projects that demonstrate strategies for more effectively serving individuals with disabilities, along with an alternative approach to measuring participation and outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
Projects that test the impact of a comprehensive universal engagement system in lieu of certain participation rate requirements.
Projects that test systematically extending the period in which vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs count toward participation rates, either generally or for particular subgroups, such as an extended training period for those pursuing a credential. The purpose of such a waiver would be to determine through evaluation whether a program that allows for longer periods in certain activities improves employment outcomes.
Note that this is not a comprehensive list, and HHS will consider other projects consistent with the statute and the guidance provided in this IM. HHS is especially interested in testing approaches that build on existing evidence on successful strategies for improving employment outcomes.

And, of course, as The Washington Post noted, "[t]he rules can’t be expanded to include people who don’t currently qualify. To get a waiver, a governor must pledge that his or her proposed plan will move 20 percent more people from welfare to work. If no progress towards that target is made in a year, the waiver will be revoked." And, to again quote the Post, "Five states, including two with Republican governors — Nevada and Utah — have asked the current Health and Human Services Department about waivers."

This of course is totally the same as abolishing the work requirement, amirite?

Well, no.

In fact, it's not even remotely the same. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities contends that it will strengthen welfare reform.

And--you knew this was coming, right?--guess who signed a letter from the Republican Governors Association advocating for the passage of the amendment that allowed the exercise of such waiver authority, stating that "Increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit and the ability to coordinate state programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work"?

You guessed Mittens? You were right!

The consummate hypocrisy of the man is breathtaking, really. He advocates before a GOP Congress that the President should have authority, the bill passes, and now the announcement that the Administration will consider requests to exercise that authority of course means that Obama wants to uncouple welfare from work--"Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.” I'm amazed they didn't add, "and a 40-ouncer!"

Master Thespians

OK, I admit it; I grew up watching a lot of British drama on PBS--from Doctor Who to Doctor in the House, with many other examples, both sublime and ridiculous.

The ridiculous were often as much fun as the sublime--I'm thinking of Poldark, Winston Graham's long, tumultuous soap opera where the bloodlines, rivalries and betrayals got so confused that you could hear dialogue like:

ROSS: Yes, Francis, the embrocation given to Aunt Agatha was so that Elizabeth would not see George take the title deeds from your secretaire.

FRANCIS (in astonishment): Ecod!

ROSS: You may well say ecod, Francis.

I mean, come on. I was a teenager from Long Island, and even I knew this is bloody ridiculous.

And let's not forget the opening sequence, which is maybe one step up from the original Dark Shadows:



I mention this because Amazon.com would like me to know that the first three novels are available in e-book form.

Which means I can read them without anybody ever knowing...

(edited to put past tense observations in the, yknow, past tense)

The Confidence Man: His Masquerade

I hate to be a buzzkill, but did you know that Mitt Romney's tax plan would raise taxes for 95% of Americans while lowering them for the top 5%?:

The report by researchers at the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, examined Romney’s suggestion of an across-the-board 20% income tax cut financed by closing existing loopholes and concluded there was no way to make the numbers work without burdening the vast majority of Americans with higher taxes.

Romney has not said which tax breaks he would end to finance his plan, but he has suggested that he would only look to breaks that benefit the wealthy. The report concluded that notion is a fantasy no matter how it’s constructed: There simply are too many middle class tax breaks on the table to avoid skewing the burden against the average American.

“Even if tax expenditures are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion from those making over $200,000 to those making less than that amount.”

You can read the full report here.

Does Romney have a response to this criticism? Of course; the magical boom economy which results whenever taxes are cut will generate a mystical flood of revenue that will even out the cost. And the Romney camp accuses the Tax Policy Center of being biased, as one of the co-authors was formerly one of President Obama's economic advisors. (Of course, another was one of George W. Bush's, for balance, but what would you?)

TPM notes that the TPC actually ran this highly unlikely scenario:

Apparently anticipating similar criticism from the right, the Tax Policy Center decided to humor them by including an alternate analysis in its study in which it assumed that Romney turns out to be correct and his tax proposals produce unexpected floods of new revenue. However, even that generous concession didn’t change its analysis.

“Although reasonable models would show that these tax changes would have little effect on growth, we show that even with implausibly large growth effects, revenue neutrality would still require large reductions in tax expenditures and would likely result in a net tax increase for lower- and middle-income households and tax cuts for high-income households,” the study concluded.

In sum, Romney wants to raise your taxes so that he can lower his own.

It's good to be the King!