August 30, 2013
Source: Shutterstock
The PC suppression of heretical thinking seemingly grows stronger by the day. Innocuous comments and the “wrong” scientific research findings are now often taboo. Not even Harvard’s president or the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson can escape the witch hunt.
The costs of ruined careers are considerable, as Jason Richwine will explain. Whole topics are now off-limits to public debate, with disastrous consequences. Does anybody want to tell Obama about race and IQ when he bemoans the plight of African American youngsters? When was the last time anyone in public spoke bluntly about Hispanic immigration?
Since “speaking truth to power” results in career-ending suicide, what’s to be done?
I suggest a practical solution that will also make some people very rich. Here’s how.
In the Soviet Union, spies and informers were everywhere and the only assurance that a newfound acquaintance was not a KGB agent was to split a bottle of vodka. It was assumed that nobody could totally lie when drunk, and drinking from the same bottle avoided one party faking it. This is not to say that every utterance was absolutely true; rather, the vodka loosened inhibitions and thus served as a cheap and convenient truth serum.
I propose a reality TV program called Drunks Gone Wild where inebriated guests discuss the day’s news with a special emphasis on “controversial” subjects. Think Fox News Channel’s The Five or CNN’s newly refurbished Crossfire, but with lots of alcohol. The program will open with participants fairly well sloshed and on their way to being totally bombed. A macho drinking culture will prevail with participants egging on each other to “have one more.”
Drunks Gone Wild will be a marketing bonanza for the booze industry by either sponsoring the show outright or paying placement fees when a guest requests his or her favorite brand (hangover cures may also want to advertise). To be sure, on-air boozing may violate FCC rules, but this can easily be overcome by switching to cable or pay-per-view where content rules are more generous. This would also permit cursing, swearing, and, most importantly, derogatory ethnic stereotypes and raucous racial/ethnic jokes.
Participating experts might wear masks or wigs plus use stage names. To keep matters lively, the studio would resemble an intimate comedy club with unlimited free booze. Audience members would sign a liability waiver indemnifying the show and liquor companies from all damages. A sponsor would get a free plug by providing the audience with free round-trip limousine rides and hotel rooms.
Audience participation would be via a Q&A session, but I”d guess that this formality would deteriorate after about 15 minutes. Audience drunks would soon be shouting out comments to panel members and to each other, and security might have to be called to break up fights.
