Editor's note: The powers that be at WND.com have told Michael Ackley he may submit the occasional column. As the general madness has accelerated, Mr. Ackley has done just that. Hence, the matter below. Remember that his columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell the difference.
"A wealth tax, that's what we need," declared Howard Bashford, thumping his desk for emphasis.
Bashford, a top aide to California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, was explaining why Assemblyman Rob Bonta's bill to impose the new levy had skated through the Legislature. An elite collection of media reporters formed his rapt audience.
"It's all about equity," he continued. "The state won't be taxing anybody who can't afford it. After all, you'd have to be worth at least $15 million before you'd have to pay a penny. Then, at four-tenths of 1 percent, you'd only have to shell out $60,000.
"Of course, that's for a married taxpayer, filing separately. Otherwise, the 'floor' is $30 million, and the cost would be $120,000."
Reporter Amy Handleman asked, "This would be on top of the millionaires' income tax, right?"
"Quite so," said Bashford. "You know how millionaires can hide income. This will help remedy tax 'avoidance.'
"We'll be going after …" he thought for a moment, then ticked off targeted assets on his fingers … "stock, partnership interests, private equities or hedge funds, noncorporate businesses, bonds, savings accounts …"
Bashford became more and more agitated as he continued "… cash, farms, mutual and index funds, options, futures contracts …"
Now the legislative aide was on his feet, punctuating the list with wild gesticulations and sweating profusely, "… offshore assets, pension funds ...
"… real property, mortgages, art and collectibles …
"And if the plutocrats flee California, we're still going to collect!"
He slumped back into his chair, his chest heaving.
"We'll reap about $7.5 billion a year," Bashford wheezed.
Handleman asked, "What will you do when everybody worth more than $30 million flees the state?"
Bashford smiled, mopping his brow with a fine, linen handkerchief.
"We'll just lower the definition of 'wealthy,'" he said.
Also approved by the state's legislature was a measure to place under-represented minorities on the boards of California corporations. As originally written, the "under-represented" were to include folks who self-identified as African American, Hispanic and Native American. It was perhaps coincidental that authors of the bill included an African American, an Asian American and a Hispanic American.
Nevertheless, the measure had to be improved before it finally was passed. After all, who wants to be left out of the under-represented list? So, the lawmakers amended the bill so corporations seeking to balance their boards also may select from Asians, Pacific Islanders, native Hawaiians, autochthonous Alaskans, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders.
Naturally, these also may "'self-identify."
Far from being a blow to the self-governance of corporations, it is meant to be a boon. Supporters say that including the under-represented will help companies tap into new markets and make more money.
Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, a cosponsor of the bill, explained that the Legislature could "no longer wait for corporations to figure it out on their own."
Ed Goliananda, (fictitious) president of the (fictitious) Silicon Valley tech firm Diuretics, said, "We're adding a distinguished business person from each of the under-represented groups, just to be sure.
"We're also adding five, unfilled seats to our board. This being California, we're sure the Legislature will find more under-represented groups to add to the list."
We enjoy writing satire, a kind of oblique commentary. But we do not wish to be oblique in discussing the subversion of our language.
Recently two young people lectured us sternly that the word "thug" was "the new N-word." And then the editor of Sacramento's daily newspaper recently wrote that the word "loot" was "rooted in racism."
One could simply refute such nonsense by citing the etymology of the words. But the revisionists counter that "words and their meanings evolve."
This is true. The extended misuse of a word will lead to the adoption of its erroneous application. Regard, for example, "comprise," "parameter," and our personal tooth-grinder, "epicenter."
The "meanings" of these words have been altered through decades of misuse. And their meanings have changed more rapidly than words a century ago or more because of semi-literates in the mass media.
But the "thug" and "loot" cases are different. A focused effort to change them is issuing from academia and spread through social media.
It is one thing that the meanings of words evolve. It is quite another when the change is pushed by professors and the students they have misled. These language crusaders are captives of a crypto-plantation mentality. This campaign seeks to shelter a protected class, which is, by implication, a class the "protectors" view as inferior.
This conscious and pernicious effort to subvert the language should put us in mind of Saul Alinsky's dictum, "He who controls the language controls the masses."
The post Predictable: Now 'loot' is a racist slur appeared first on WND.
