To all previous posters: try reading Stein’s essay as sarcasm. Wanting “a ban on guns not used for hunting” is over the line even in sarcasm, but most of the essay is... well, not *funny*, McGee, but a pretty good upside-down look at BHO. Just sayin’.
Stein is being tongue in cheek in a very cheeky way. It’s hyperbole with a touch of humorous twist, but it absolutely exposes his desire for the government(the dear leader)to exert more control over citizens...or should I say subjects.
Stein thinks disguising his dictatorial vision by cloaking it in exaggeration and flippancy works. Not for me.
I thought it was satire at first, too. Started waffling about midway through. The following paragraph at the end clinched it for me that Stein was serious:
“But also because instead of an actual dictator, I think what we need is to recognize that social mores require government nudges like the ones Bloomberg creates and Obama adviser Cass Sunstein advocates. We live in a connected age in which our liberties bump against one another. I know this is all easy to say since I’m not a smoker, a soda drinker or a columnist whom politicians listen to. But in an age of overwhelming choice, some dictatorial direction would help. Plus, then Obama wouldn’t have to be on TV so much.”
Why, Because if it was satire, Stein would have either gone WAY over the top here to drive the satirical point home or would have blown up his own premise. Instead, he did a mild back-off to what is apparently the actual point, with a little humor thrown in to make it more palatable. That’s not satire, that’s an attempt at persuasive writing.