Poor Mojo's Newswire

The new and wonderful conspiracy theory was hatched just one day prior to the time of this writing on 4chan’s /mu/ board. What’s now being called Mangum-Gate 2012 all began with a user called Ediie posting a normal photo of Jeff Mangum from his high school yearbook. For the uninitiated, Jeff Mangum was the lead vocalist, guitarist and, most central to the conspiracy, lyricist for the objectively great indie rock band Neutral Milk Hotel.[1] Some posts below the photo of Jeff Mangum, another user posted a picture of someone named Caroline Mangum. Alright, no problem, it’s his sister, right?[2] And this is when things get interesting. Another user posted a photo of this Caroline Mangum person next to the iconic photo of Anne Frank. They look somewhat similar. And a conspiracy was born! What does the most famous victim of the holocaust have to do with some indie rocker from Louisiana, besides that his sister sort of resembles her? A lot, in fact. Neutral Milk Hotel has two songs I’d go so far as to label “hits.” The oft-tattooed and beautifully melancholy “In An Aeroplane Over the Sea,” and “Holland 1945.” The latter song is, in no uncertain terms, about Anne Frank. It’s almost a love letter to her. At the very least it mourns Frank’s untimely death, directly referencing her passing mere weeks before the Nazi death camps were liberated by the allies in, when else, 1945.[3] Okay, so he’s got a song about her. Whatever. Later in this same thread, another user posted a photo of Mangum’s wife next to the Anne Frank/ Caroline Mangum diptych. Turns out Mangum’s wife also resembles the other two women. White females with dark hair and similar face shape? They must be the same person! And if they’re all the same person, that can only mean one thing. Jeff Mangum traveled back in time, saved Anne Frank, brought her to the future, grew up with her posing as his sister, and subsequently married her in his adulthood. It all makes perfect sense! . . .

China will start phasing out its reliance on organs from executed prisoners for transplants early next year as a new national donation system is implemented, a government-appointed expert has said. Chinese officials acknowledge that a transplantation system that uses mostly organs from death-row prisoners is neither ethical nor sustainable, Wang Haibo said in an interview in the November edition of the World Health Organisation's journal, Bulletin. An organ donation system run by the Red Cross Society of China had been piloted for two years in 16 regions and was scheduled to be rolled out nationwide by early 2013, Wang said. "Now there is consensus among China's transplant community that the new system will relinquish the reliance on organs from executed convicts. "The implementation of the new national system will start early next year at the latest. This will also mark the start of phasing out the old practice." . . .

. . . Lately, however, I’ve seen a growing number of Romney supporters making a quite different argument. Vote for Mr. Romney, they say, because if he loses, Republicans will destroy the economy. O.K., they don’t quite put it that way. The argument is phrased in terms of “partisan gridlock,” as if both parties were equally extreme. But they aren’t. This is, in reality, all about appeasing the hard men of the Republican Party. If you want an example of what I’m talking about, consider the remarkable — in a bad way — editorial in which The Des Moines Register endorsed Mr. Romney. The paper acknowledged that Mr. Obama’s signature economic policy, the 2009 stimulus, was the right thing to do. It also acknowledged that Mr. Obama tried hard to reach out across the partisan divide, but was rebuffed. Yet it endorsed his opponent anyway, offering some half-hearted support for Romneynomics, but mainly asserting that Mr. Romney would be able to work with Democrats in a way that Mr. Obama has not been able to work with Republicans. Why? Well, the paper claims — as many of those making this argument do — that, in office, Mr. Romney would be far more centrist than anything he has said in the campaign would indicate. (And the notion that he has been lying all along is supposed to be a point in his favor?) But mostly it just takes it for granted that Democrats would be more reasonable. Is this a good argument?