Posted on June 29, 2015



Ten Fold

Loopy Lew dumps founder for feminism


Daniel Clark



So this is what we get from a Treasury secretary who has to learn how to write his own name as part of his on-the-job training.  When Jack Lew was appointed, his signature consisted of a lazily scribbled series of eight loops, which more closely resembled a tragic Slinky accident than any person’s name.  The only way it came anywhere near spelling a word was if he happened to be quoting Arnold Horshack. (“Oooo! Oooo!”)

President Obama joked that when he saw it, “I considered rescinding my offer to appoint him,” but then added, “Jack assures me that he is going to make at least one letter legible in order not to debase our currency.”  Lew has held up his part of the bargain, by revising his signature so that his initials are recognizable.  Anyone who took that to mean he wouldn’t be vandalizing our money, however, has been mistaken.

Our current Secretary of the Treasury has decided to remove his bureaucratic ancestor from his place of honor – partially, at least.  In response to a feminist internet campaign to put a woman on the $20 bill, Lew announced that one would appear on the ten instead, because that’s the next denomination that’s up for a redesign.  Yet an FAQ page posted by the Treasury Department assures us that “the image of Alexander Hamilton will remain part of the $10 note.”

It is not clear just how Lew will accomplish that.  One possibility that’s been floated is that two different bills will be circulated, one with Hamilton’s likeness, and one with that of a woman to be named later.  Another option would be to have the woman portrayed in the traditional manner, while Hamilton lurks in the background, like the ghost image of Andrew Jackson that appears on the right-hand side of the twenty when you hold it up to the light.  Perhaps they’ll even do a simple cut-and-paste job to place both figures in a single portrait, in the tradition of The Weekly World News.

Whatever the design, it is bound to be deemed unsatisfactory.  Making a concession to a group of liberals never ends the story, but only leads to additional demands, as anybody should know who has lived through the decline and fall of McDonald’s.  No man who is on our currency has ever been forced to share the spotlight, but once the government decides to include a woman, she may not even be given top billing, so to speak.  Lew may think he’s becoming a liberal hero by honoring a woman, but to those few who are demanding it, his action will only belittle her by suggesting she needs the presence of a man.  That arrangement won’t be any more acceptable to the activists than if he emblazoned the new bill with an image of a feminist icon fetching Hamilton’s slippers.

Lew’s desire to use our currency to suck up to the diversity-mongers is complicated by the facts that there is a finite number of denominations, and our founding fathers, as the title would once upon a time have suggested, were all men.  Of course there are plenty of women who deserve to be honored for their role American history, but not at the expense of a giant like Hamilton, the mastermind and primary author of The Federalist Papers.  Lew, in an effort to placate both sides, will only succeed in alienating each.

How strange, that such a controversy would emerge at this particular time, when society pretends that a man is a woman just because he says he is.  If one’s sex is now determined subjectively, then what’s the point in replacing an image of one person with that of another for the sake of “gender inclusiveness”?  The men on our currency are no longer alive to speak for themselves, but several of them, including Hamilton, wore wigs.  Who’s to say how they “identify”?

The subdued reaction to Lew’s announcement illustrates an unexpected obstacle facing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.  Celebrating America’s first-ever female fill-in-the-blank is so 2013.  This latest phase of the sexual revolution has ironically rendered feminism obsolete.

These new bills won’t be issued until 2020.  Between now and then, the Supreme Court may be called upon to legally define the words “man” and “woman,” and we can take a pretty good guess that it will not find them to be mutually exclusive.  At that point, the significance of putting a woman on the $10 bill will be as lacking in clarity as Jack Lew’s penmanship.



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar