Gippers and Gangrene

 

To really understand a person, you have to look at their heroes and idols.

More and more, Levi patterns himself after Ronald Reagan.

Is that the sort of person who is deserving of love?

Strength

Immense Levite Profits at the Expense of Liberty

How to Succeed at Economics

Sixty dollars hush money (per month).

Twelve months, $720.

$720, pulled from the mouth of an infant.

The cost to the Mt. Clemens mafioso? Zero (excepting time and caloric energy expenditure).

With the spare change from all the moms and pops (aka the future health and security of the young and vulnerable), off he goes to wine and--well, just wine.

Lots and lots of wine.

Wine, a product of humanity's destructive methods of argiculture.

Death in so many ways, down so many avenues.

Little Levi, your neighborhood capitalist.

::

Levi can redeem himself in our eyes--and elicit the closing of this blog--if he takes a drastic step toward disassembling Western civilization, like blowing up a dam.

A Modern and Modest (?) Conundrum

A sort of paradox--

One the one hand, it's fairly well documented that J. Levi Tate-Larose (please note that we use a half-pseudonym to protect ourselves from "Levi's" penchant for get-rich-quick litigation) has had a very toxic effect on at least a handful of persons known to us. Scientific findings over the last few years have begun to support a viral theory of schizophrenia, and considering Levi has been so diagnosed--and that those in his environs have similarly been classified as such--you could make a decent argument that he should be quarantined by state authorities.

But on the other hand, in a more metaphysical/creative realm, he has a certain value. His public literary offerings, while hampered by incomprehensibility and a long-discredited slew of half-baked New Age concepts, nonetheless has a special appeal, much in the vein of what's regarded popularly as "Outsider Art." If you delve into analysis of the social networking phenomenon, you'll readily find that 99% of what is posted in the public sphere is--and we feel comfortable in considering this opinion "objective"--utterly banal, empty, and deeply unsatisfying. Levi, by contrast, offers much food for thought, and on occasion can even inspire a string of strange and exotic trains of thought.

So, while knowing that Levi's presence--both physical and textual--has very toxic tendencies, could we still stand in support of his maintaining a soapbox in the cultural commons? On this issue the contributors to this blog are (respectfully) divided.

Let's say you order thirty loaves of bread from levi--will thirty be delivered? No--more like 28, with no corresponding refund.

Levi's pilfering fingers are undermining the free market economy.