Regular reader and sometimes writer Mack brought my attention to a PBS documentary, Independent Lens Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream. It is about the two ends of Park Avenue: the part in the Upper West Side and the part in Harlem. It is a way of looking at income inequality in a very concrete way. It is a nice addition to Winner-Take-All Politics—coauthor Jacob Hacker is even interviewed in it. (See my article on the book.)

What most struck me in the film was a study that social psychologist Paul Piff did with the game of Monopoly. Instead of giving players an equal start, he defined players as either rich or poor. The rich player received three times the usual starting cash. The poor player received half the usual starting cash, got half as much money for passing go, and had to roll one die instead of the usual two. Obviously, the poor player lost—and quickly. But what is interesting is that the designated rich players developed a sense of entitlement. They demanded their wages and seemed to feel large amounts of schadenfreude.

This is all very interesting, but I think the more important lesson we can learn from the game is something that Piff mentioned in the interview:

Here’s the thing: you have, as the Republicans like to say, “Equality of opportunity.” You get to roll the dice. You are as likely to land on Chance as anyone else. You too get $200 when you pass go. What’s the problem?!

The problem is that you have no money and you would have no current opportunity to buy any property even if you had money. True equality would be if all the properties were unowned and everyone had the same amount of money—with the Monopoly economy or the real one. But check it out: you could still win. If you were ridiculously lucky—way more than “spade royal flush” lucky—you could win. And if enough people play enough games of Monopoly, eventually a poor player will win. Just like some small percentage of people in the real economy who grow up in poverty but go on to be hedge fund managers.

And that’s what’s so frustrating talking to conservatives who throw up the occasional exceptional success as proof that there really is “equality of opportunity.” I think this Monopoly example really clarifies the issue. And I plan to use it a lot in the future.

Otherwise, Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream is a good documentary on income inequality. It’s well worth watching, even if you already know all about income inequality. And I’m going to make it easy on you. Here it is:

I just watched two documentaries about ventriloquism. The first, Dumbstruck, is about amateurs and the normal professionals. One of those normal professionals, Terry Fator, went from unknown to winning America’s Got Talent and becoming one of the highest paid comedians in history during the course of the film. On the other end of the scale is a 13 year old boy, Dylan Burdette, who dreams of being a professional ventriloquist. There is also Wilma Swartz, a 6’5″ tall woman who does a lot of charity work with her puppets. And Kim Yeager, a former beauty queen who does hundreds of gigs at schools every year.

One thing that really stuck out to me in this film was what dicks many of the family members were. Swartz’s siblings have disowned her, at least partly because of the puppets (she is otherwise quite eccentric). Burdette’s father is very concerned that his son plays with dolls and is short. (Burdette has since grown taller than his father but he still plays with dolls.) Yeager’s mother never seems to say anything other than that her daughter ought to give up the dolls and have babies with the first man who passes by. (Yeager has since married.) And Terry Fator’s father wouldnn’t even show up to one of his gigs after Fator signed a $100 million 5 year contract with The Mirage.

The most impressive of the ventriloquist featured in Dumbstruck was Dan Horn. But before I tell you about him: his wife of 25 years left him during the making of the film. (Andrea claims this is because he’s gay. But he’s not gay; he’s a ventriloquist; there’s a difference.) Anyway… I’m not that fond of ventriloquism. What I love is puppetry. And Horn is as good a puppeteer as I have ever seen. His characters come alive in ways that frankly I’ve never seen with a ventriloquist. Here his is back in 1988, although I think he is better now:

I liked Dumbstruck more than the other movies, because I liked seeing the real world of ventriloquism. Most people, however, would prefer the second film, I’m No Dummy. It is more the view of ventriloquism from the perspective of the stars. It does a good job of providing a history of the last century of the art form. There are also interviews with historians and a museum curator. Plus there is lots of old footage of Paul Winchell, Edgar Bergen, Arthur Worsley, Wenceslao Moreno (Señor Wences), and Jimmy Nelson (still alive and performing). It is all great fun to watch.

About half the film is made up of interviews with modern practitioners. I’m very fond of Lynn Trefzger and Jay Johnson, so that was all very enjoyable. Unfortunately, a lot of screen time was devoted to Jeff Dunham. I’m not just being a contrarian here. Terry Fator is now as big as Dunham and I have a high regard for Fator. Dunham is funny enough—amusing but not hilarious. As a ventriloquist, he is barely acceptable at the professional level. As a puppeteer, he is terrible. Watch him with Walter, Dunham can’t even get his lips to sync up with the voice. Whatever.

Both movies are quite enjoyable and worth a watch. There is far more actual comedy in I’m No Dummy, but Dumbstruck is also quite amusing with all the human drama of real lives. Plus: really unpleasant family members!

WASHINGTON—As they scoured the Internet for more juicy details about former CIA director David Petraeus’ affair with biographer Paula Broadwell, Americans were reportedly horrified today upon learning that a protracted, bloody war involving U.S. forces is currently raging in the nation of Afghanistan. “Oh my God, this is terrible,” Allie Lipscomb, 29, said after accidentally stumbling on an article about the war while she tried to ascertain details about what specific sexual acts Petraeus and Broadwell might have engaged in. “According to this, 2,000 American troops have died, 18,000 have been wounded, and more than 20,000 civilians have been killed. Jesus Christ. And it’s been happening for, like, 11 years.” Sources confirmed that after reading a few paragraphs about the brutal war, the nation quickly became distracted by a headline about Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash’s alleged sexual abuse of a 16-year-old boy.

—The Onion, 13 Nov 2012

For the record, Kevin Clash’s accuser has recanted. We don’t cotton to loose gossip about puppeteers around here!

Foreign Policy is a pretty serious magazine. But when Texas last talked about secession, Annie Lowrey at the magazine took notice and had a good laugh about it. At that time, Rick Perry was publicly calling for secession—something she called, “A piece of asinine political rhetoric.” But she did take the whole thing seriously enough to blow it so full of holes anyone would be an idiot to bring it up again.

This time around, of course, Rick Perry is against secession. But this isn’t because he’s learned anything. He is just hoping that by 2016, he may not be too stupid to get the Republican presidential nomination. (He is wrong.)

Most of Lowrey’s analysis focuses on what a hostile withdrawal from the Union would do to Texas. This makes sense, because, as she points out: in Texas v. White, the Supreme Court found that secession was illegal. That was 143 years ago—a long time in terms of stare decisis. So if Texas is going to go, they are going to have to do it against the will of the United Other 49 States of America.

If somehow Texas managed to secede, they would have to put enormous resources into securing their borders. What’s more, their main trading partner—the UO49SA—would be gone. They would have a hard time trading with others in the region, except for maybe the socialist states that aren’t that keen on the USA. But probably not. And Texas would likely become a narco-state.

Lowrey sums it up:

Which I think is really the best approach for Texas now: shut up and pay your damn taxes!

Philadelphia is an interesting place. It is cut up into 1,687 voting divisions. Of these, 59 voted 100% for President Obama. That’s right: in 59 divisions, Mitt Romney did not get a single vote. This is the kind of information that makes even the staunchest Democratic partisan suspicious. Not one vote?

It turns out that this is not all that uncommon. In 2008, there were 57 divisions that cast no votes for McCain. What’s more, Stanford University politic scientist Jonathan Rodden notes that this is just the way things are, “We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic… It’s kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia.”

Three reporters at the Philadelphia Inquirer decided to head into these divisions in a hunt for urban Republicans. In particular, there were some registered Republicans in some of them. But what they found was that the Republicans either did not live there any more, or they were Obama supporters who were quite surprised to hear that they were registered as Republicans. On person, a chef named Eric Sapp said, “I got to check on that.”

In the end, they didn’t find any voting irregularity. And really, why would they? If you were a Democratic operative fixing elections, would you really work it so your opponent received no votes? Even apart from how it would look, allowing not a single vote could so easily be used to demonstrate voter fraud; all you’d have to do is find a single uncounted Republican vote.

The truth is that urban voters of all types are strong Democratic Party supporters. And the poorer they are, the stronger their support. These voting divisions are in poor urban areas. And as I’ve argued: that is the true Republican demographic challenge.

There is something in the water over at SNL and it ain’t LSD. Or maybe it is. That would kind of explain the likes of Dennis Miller, Jon Lovitz, and especially Victoria Jackson. On election night, she had a bigger meltdown than most conservatives, claiming that she couldn’t stop crying. And for good reason: “America died.” On the badness scale, that is one notch below, “Music died.” What especially sucks is there is no cool song to go along with it.

That evening Jackson also tweeted the now infamous, “Thanks a lot Christians for not showing up. You disgust me.” Can’t you just feel that Born Again love? You know what Jesus said, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who votes Democratic to enter the kingdom of God.” So suck it all you America hating commie bastards!

And in this vein, Jackson tweeted this morning, “Obama’s policies (communism) PUNISH the Responsible and REWARD the Irresponsible.” This was following from a tweet last night in which she spread her Christian love:

White people (statistically) don’t have more children than they can take care of without outside assistance.It’s called RESPONSIBILITY.

— Victoria Jackson (@vicjackshow) November 13, 2012

Don’t get the wrong idea here: Victoria Jackson is not racist. You know this because of that caveat. It’s not that white people are better, it’s just that they tend that way—statistically! It’s just science. Like The Bell Curve. It’s not like she wants to kill non-whites; they’re just like Christians; you know: disgusting.

But perhaps we are too harsh on the once talented Ms. Jackson. She has known tragedy. Her first husband—fire eater Nisan Mark Eventoff—left her, because it is apparently easier to swallow fire than Victoria’s bullshit. And her two daughters are rumored to have died recently of extreme cases of shame and embarrassment. Jackson is apparently immune.

On her Twitter desciption, Victoria Jackson lists simply, John 16:33. For those of you not up on your Bible, John is the antisemitic Gospel. Not that I’m saying Jackson is antisemitic. Like most loon Christians, she probably loves the Jews because they are necessary to the Second Coming. After that they can burn in hell, of course. Anyway, here’s the verse:

I’m fond of this verse, because it calls on Christians to chill the fuck out. And they used to! It is only recently that the Religious Right rose up and decided they should work to make their perfect biblical government here on earth. This is why they get so angry at the radical Islamists: they’re competition.

I find it a little sad that Victoria Jackson could be doing all of this as an art form: political satire. It disturbs me that she is clearly not. She is all too typical of her species of born against Christianity that seems to think Jesus was Joseph McCarthy plus magic tricks. Reading Jackson’s comments is one of those rare activities where you truly don’t know whether to laugh or cry.