January 06, 2011
— Ace Back in the nineties, Mickey Kaus' great big idea was championing social equality, and suggesting to liberals they reduce their focus on pure money equality.
In The End of Equality, he argues persuasively that the most serious threat to American democracy today comes not so much from the maldistribution of wealth as from the decay or abandonment of public institutions in which citizens can meet as equals. Equality of income, he says, is less important than the goal of social or civil equality.He points out that foreign observers used to marvel at the lack of snobbery, deference, and class feeling in America. There was "nothing oppressed or submissive" about the American worker, German economist Werner Sombart wrote in 1906. "He carries his head high, walks with a lissom stride, and is as open and cheerful in his expression as any member of the middle class." A few years later, the British historian R.H. Tawney noted that America was "marked indeed by much economic inequality; but it is also marked by much social equality." It is this culture of self-respect, Kaus suggests, that we are in danger of losing.
The trouble with our society is not just that the rich have too much money, in Kaus's view, but that their money insulates them, much more than it used to, from the common life. It is the "routine acceptance of 'professionals' as a class apart" and the "smug content" of the affluent and educated for the "demographically inferior" that poses the greatest threat to civic life, according to Kaus.
His idea never caught on, I think because what he is really discussing is sort of a moral or ethical thing, and only marginally a political one. When we speak of politics, we are usually talking about legislative outcomes, coalitions for and against legal forbiddances and encouragements through subsidies, and he strains to suggest methods of adding the "legal compulsion" element to his idea (hey, let's reinstitute the national draft because it encourages social mixing and a shared egalitarian experience), but mostly what he's talking about is only quasipolitical. He's talking, largely, about just treating people with dignity.
But maybe there's a bigger reason Kaus' book didn't generate much of a movement, apart from some respectful reveiws: Are liberals really interested in that? I'm not suggesting just that social equality is a lower priority for them than Kaus would urge. I'm suggesting that to many liberals, the whole idea of social equality is a bad thing, something they're actively against. Because, I submit, it's particularly critical to many liberals, to their sense of self-valuation, that they are in fact apart from, and above, the Common.
I was reminded of this watching an old Penn Gilette clip on YouTube, discussing a nasty, smug put-down of the Tea Party by Seth MacFarlane. MacFarlane's argument is, of course, that the Tea Party is racist. And how does he know that? Because they agitate against what he claims is their own economic self-interest (poor, uneducated, and easy to command, as the Washington Post once wrote about conservatives), and since they're clearly in need of a government hand-out but vigorously opposed to that handout, what else could possibly explain their truculence but racism?
But that's just same-old same-old. Penn addresses this but that's not his main concern. His main beef is with MacFarlane's next statement, something along the lines of And I should want the Tea Party to succeed, because what they want -- lower taxes, smaller government -- is actually in my best economic interest!
Which causes Penn to explode. "WHAT?" You're capable of rising above your own perceived economic self-interest, and choosing an outcome you feel is better for the nation as a whole while being less good for you yourself, but you will not even entertain the possibility that Tea Partiers are similarly capable?
Skip to 6:23 for Penn's discussion on this.
I mentioned social equality because it's pretty plain that Seth MacFarlane is on the "con" side of social equality. He's willing to talk a good game about giving up some of his money for the public good (although why he can't do that in the absence of a law requiring him to do so continues to elude me) but one thing he's definitely not giving up to his social inferiors is respect. He categorizes them as children, or what the state used to call "morons" -- mentally challenged -- or even as animals; incapable of abstract thought, incapable of even knowing their own true motivations (they're "puppets" of their masters), incapable of even recognizing where their own self-interest lay.
Incapable of thinking, incapable of decisionmaking, incapable of truly participating in the American civic religion of democracy, of choosing political outcomes.
This is important to Seth MacFarlane and, I'd suggest, of many of the nastier, more sneering sort of liberals. Money is less important to a Seth MacFarlane, as he has so damn much of it -- I think once someone gets past $50 million or so additional dollars have a relatively small marginal value. There's only so much someone can spend, after all.
So he's willing to give up some of those extra dollars of marginal benefit to himself.
But when it comes to something he treasures -- the "smug content" of being "a class apart" as Kaus wrote -- that he clings to greedily.
That is what is precious to him; and he will not part with it. You will take his sneering superiority from his cold, dead hands.
If our tax code were capable of quantifying smug self-satisfaction and extracting that from our citizens, you'd find Seth MacFarlane suddenly on the side of small, limited government.
I've long, long contended that much of the social codes and habits of liberals is for the exact purpose of creating a new aristocracy, with aristocratic entitlement and aristocratic privilege and, yes, aristocratic noblesse oblige to help the common and less fortunate; while talking up equality, many liberals do as much as they can to establish and maintain very clear lines of demarcation between the common class and the Overclass.
That's what's important to them, that's what is highest in their hearts, so folks like Seth MacFarlane shouldn't pose as benevolent and magnanimous while actually selfishly hoarding the thing most precious to them, and denying to the "common" class what they actually want the most -- to be treated with dignity and as capable human beings fully gifted to think and choose for themselves.
Until the MacFarlanes of the world start giving that coin up -- the coin of dignity and equal treatment -- I reject their posturing as generous.
Posted by: Ace at
09:33 AM
| Comments (186)
Post contains 1122 words, total size 7 kb.
Posted by: Manny Mota Mota Mota Mota at January 06, 2011 09:36 AM (5I0Yr)
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 06, 2011 09:40 AM (02uN6)
Posted by: tsj017 at January 06, 2011 09:41 AM (4YUWF)
Posted by: Uncle Jed at January 06, 2011 09:41 AM (wisXM)
I can deal with my clowns being creepy, pedophilic drunks with glassy doll-eyes, but not when they stop being funny and start calling me racist. That's my Rubicon.
Posted by: VJay at January 06, 2011 09:42 AM (gQ+XA)
And so we return to Goldberg, and H.G.Well's, notion of liberal fascism.
It has a nicer face then the European version, of course, but it is every bit as totalitarian.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 06, 2011 09:42 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: joeindc44 at January 06, 2011 09:46 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at January 06, 2011 09:47 AM (SB0V2)
This you should have posted more than once.
...and again, the Hubris of the Leftist Elite is inescapable. In order to arrive at their desired end, they will corrupt any ethos they claim for themselves.
Posted by: garrett at January 06, 2011 09:47 AM (be8zh)
Yeah skip ahead - otherwise you'll see him out-of-breath...as he walks around. (I thought I could see Moxie CrimeFighter if I didn't skip ahead!)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 06, 2011 09:48 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: cali grump at January 06, 2011 09:48 AM (hL0k8)
Posted by: Dave C at January 06, 2011 09:48 AM (XEGGe)
Wealthy liberals make this argument a lot...but it really isn't true. Ignore for a moment how dependent many of these bobos are on indirect public funding - and just consider what the effects of removing the suffocating power of the state would be.
Suddenly the wealthy have to compete with a middle class free and wealthy enough to travel and pursue high end entertainment also.
Every soccer mom driving an SUV next to your luxury one, keeping you stuck in traffic when these peons should be taking public transit. Finding your favorite tropical getaway full of Americans from, gasp, Ohio. Your vegan Brazilian-Thai fusion place forced out of business by the new high end Steak House. Etc...
Posted by: 18-1 at January 06, 2011 09:49 AM (7BU4a)
Wait so he's just finding out that libs are hypocrites? Or maybe he's known it but now feels compelled to call them out?
Eh, whatever it is, it's certainly full of win.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 06, 2011 09:50 AM (pLTLS)
The guy behind Family Guy, American Dad, and a lot of other FOX animated properties.
He's also from deep blue Rhode Island and is completely out of touch with most of the country, putting a bunch of cheap shots against the South and Republicans in his work, such as having two characters go back in time to Nazi Germany and wearing a "McCain / Palin 2008" button to "fit in".
A lot of people within the comedy and animation industry can't stand him and think his random non-sequitor comedy is a bunch of crap.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 06, 2011 09:50 AM (w28+K)
Posted by: Dave C at January 06, 2011 09:50 AM (XEGGe)
This post is very well done. I've long believed that a key failure of modern society is the widespread disdain for honest labor. There should be no shame in doing a "regular" job and doing it well. However, among many there is the assumption that any person who doesn't work in data or abstractions is a dullard.
The Left is the most guilty of this - they are quick to consider themselves the enlightened ones, the intelligencia, and somehow nobler and wiser than the common man. If they make lots of money, well, to them it seems only natural, since they're a better class of folk. If they make very little money, well, that's OK too - they are eschewing wealth in favor of a higher/nobler calling. They always seem themselves as better and wise, and entitled to do whatever they think is best. In reality they're just effete, snobbish scum who degrade the culture and lead the rest of us to ruin.
Sometimes I wonder if the commies didn't have something half-right when they decided to wipe out the "intellectuals."
Posted by: Reactionary at January 06, 2011 09:50 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: joncelli at January 06, 2011 09:51 AM (RD7QR)
Why is Kaus still a Democrat? Isn't the whole point of being a Democrat sneering about teabaggers because they don't their clothes from the right stores and don't eat the right foods? Oh, and taking money from the public, but mostly the former.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 06, 2011 09:51 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: joeindc44 at January 06, 2011 09:53 AM (QxSug)
2. Person enjoys money but still thinks deep inside he doesn't deserve it.
This is a strong point. If you look at liberal industries like entertainment, success is only loosely tied to talent. It is very easy to presume that such is true of all venues. So, when you got your start on the casting coach or a favor from your uncle, it is easy to presume that those "wealthy" small businessmen did too...
Posted by: 18-1 at January 06, 2011 09:53 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 09:53 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: Dave C at January 06, 2011 09:53 AM (XEGGe)
This is why I worry. Our original revolution was against a distant aristocracy in another land, and that's largely why (in my opinion) it unfolded as it did. France and subsequent ones were about distant aristocracies in the same land; without the benefit of the overthrown order's members being 'somewhere else' where they could comfortably remain, things got ugly.
On top of that, back then we were used to carrying on without the Duke of Whatsit-on-the-Blarpwater being nearby; not so much France, as an example. Thus we didn't have a particular rush to replace the obliterated aristocracy with a new one; it was largely the finalization of an emergent order. (China is a classic example of this--I still think of the ChiComs as just the latest in their long string of imperial dynasties, with Mao replacing Lao Tzu and Red as the new Yellow.)
Once established, the trend is hard to root back out. That's why I get down about this stuff.
Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at January 06, 2011 09:54 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Rajiv Vindaloo at January 06, 2011 09:54 AM (mTqTz)
You'd think that this would have had an effect on him, but it didn't.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 06, 2011 09:54 AM (w28+K)
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 06, 2011 09:55 AM (02uN6)
Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at January 06, 2011 09:55 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Rajiv Vindaloo at January 06, 2011 01:54 PM (mTqTz)
Great minds think alike, apparently.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 06, 2011 09:55 AM (w28+K)
Posted by: dagny at January 06, 2011 09:55 AM (d2Pb5)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 09:56 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: Crusty at January 06, 2011 09:57 AM (GvSpB)
Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at January 06, 2011 09:57 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: thegreatsatan at January 06, 2011 09:57 AM (MV5kD)
Posted by: Rajiv Vindaloo at January 06, 2011 01:54 PM (mTqTz)
Huh. And yet he learned nothing. If only he'd had greater sobriety that night. The poor schmuck on standby who got his seat would have survived. The odds are damn good that America would have come out ahead.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 06, 2011 09:57 AM (xUM1Q)
He would be cool hang out with for about ten minutes at a Hollywood party.. After that, his habit of breaking into the characters of Stewie and Quagmire a drop of a hat would get annoying to the point of wanting to punch him.
From what I've seen, the "character" of Brian is the real Seth. That's what makes the Quagmire rant about how pretentious and self-absorbed Brian is so spot-on and hilarious.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 06, 2011 09:57 AM (w28+K)
My answer was/is that I don't see things that way. We have many interests in common. We both achieve by our own efforts. We laugh at the same jokes. We can spend an entire day or week together and not have one argument.
If you want class differences, go to Britain. Or India. It's a 'no sale' here, at least for the people I know.
Posted by: GnuBreed at January 06, 2011 09:57 AM (h0RtZ)
Liberals love the lower classes...as long as they know their place and don't start thinking for themselves.
Let's suppose Seth is right. Don't the people have the right to use their power of sovereignty to make errors?
Oh, that's right, of course they don't.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 09:58 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at January 06, 2011 09:58 AM (GBXon)
Whatever needs to be said herein is well-said therein
this "new class" is a global phenomenon is global and growing; elites everywhere have more of a bond with each other than with their countrymen
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 06, 2011 09:58 AM (UqKQV)
I've long, long contended that much of the social codes and habits of liberals is for the exact purpose of creating a new aristocracy, with aristocratic entitlement and aristocratic privilege and, yes, aristocratic noblesse oblige to help the common and less fortunate; while talking up equality, many liberals do as much as they can to establish and maintain very clear lines of demarcation between the common class and the Overclass.
Isn't that the history of communism?
Posted by: dagny at January 06, 2011 09:59 AM (d2Pb5)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 09:59 AM (3SBB0)
First, as always, let's start with this unassailable truth: Welfare states, whether in the immediate economic interests of the lower economic rung or not, are not sustainable. We're seeing that now (again) and the lefties give it the old "LALALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU."
Second, the particular strain of classism that exists in the minds of McFarlane and others of the fashionable academic and entertainment community is an outgrowth of the stealth Marxism in our schools since the 60s. But here is the ironic twist: They largely do it to belong to the cool kids club. It's a variant of the VDH piece on sophistry from the side bar. It doesn't matter if they are empirically wrong on just about everything as long as they get in the Spago Academy Awards after-party.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 06, 2011 09:59 AM (B+qrE)
This also fits in very well with VDH's column linked in the sidebar regarding the new sophists to the effect that the elite rely solely on their elite status to be correct. The mirror image of that is that we knuckledraggers can never be right regardless of the truth our opinion because we are knuckledraggers. And I wonder if that doesn't explain why Chollie Rangel has been able to lie, cheat, and steal his way through congress for the last forty years with no real sanction. The elites see him (and all blacks) as knuckledraggers who can't hope to actually become independent human beings but who can be manipulated to help with the continuing empowerment of the elite. After all, if they booted Chollie, they'd just get some other lying, cheating, stealing knuckledragger and whoever that was, he might not be house trained like Chollie.
P.S. You know why Seth MacFarland is an elite? Because he made a lot of money by not overestimating the intelligence and taste of the American public.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 06, 2011 10:00 AM (xxgag)
Posted by: Elaine Benes at January 06, 2011 10:01 AM (be8zh)
Posted by: joeindc44 at January 06, 2011 10:02 AM (QxSug)
Those first three years were to dip the kids slightly in the public trough, but yank them out before any influences stuck. Starting at 4th grade they were safely placed in private schools where everyone knew Who was Who
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 06, 2011 10:02 AM (UqKQV)
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 10:02 AM (BvBKY)
A funny thing about Seth McFarlane is he's a sick fuck who uses his cartoon to express his own racism and fascination with pedophilia.
What, you think he pulled those crude and sophomoric jokes from the ether? What you see on his cartoon comes from the depths of his owned warped mind.
He'd probably get along well with Mark Millar, writer of Kick-Ass and The Unfunnies, amongst other things.
A sample quote from Millar about one of his works:
"My wife got about six pages into it when she was reading it in the bath the other night and she just threw it at me. She said it was the most horrible thing she'd ever read in her life and she didn't want to think this sort of shit even went on in my head. I tried to explain that the crow was sucking cock for a REASON, but it actually does sound kind of creepy saying it out loud."
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 06, 2011 10:03 AM (w28+K)
Ask them to build or fix anything and suddenly they need their lessors.
Though they will bitch about the price and make you use the bathroom at the gas station. A very enlightened crowd.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 06, 2011 10:04 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Adlib at January 06, 2011 10:04 AM (k/CNO)
Posted by: mrp at January 06, 2011 10:06 AM (HjPtV)
This is the best essay you've written in months. Maybe longer. Really sharp stuff.
Posted by: Jeff B. at January 06, 2011 10:06 AM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Jeff B. at January 06, 2011 10:07 AM (NjYDy)
So why are Deadliest Catch, Dirty Jobs, American Chopper, Monster Garage, Pawn Stars, American Pickers and every other tv show where we watch people work and admire them for it are so popular? To the point of making them stars and very, very rich in the process.
The American worker is the hero of this nation. I think what confuses Kaus is that America's multi-generational non-working welfare recipients are not heroes and are thankfully, generally looked down on.
Posted by: Dang at January 06, 2011 10:07 AM (TXKVh)
Posted by: Dr Spank at January 06, 2011 10:07 AM (1fB+3)
Imagine what Seth MacFarlane could accomplish if he believed in a power greater than his own mind.
This isn't the same thing. Not. At. All.
Posted by: garrett at January 06, 2011 10:08 AM (be8zh)
Posted by: Just call me Seth. at January 06, 2011 10:08 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 10:08 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 10:10 AM (3SBB0)
Sowell did an entire book "Vision Of the Anointed" on this subject, well worth the read.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 06, 2011 10:11 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Dang at January 06, 2011 02:07 PM (TXKVh)
To most Americans, he is--but to the elites, the American worker is a crude ignorant peasant. The MFM apes the attitudes and mannerisms of the elites, so we get their warped view every day throughout the 'news'
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 06, 2011 10:11 AM (UqKQV)
Hubby grew up in a bluish collar home but because of his academic progress was scholarshipped through elite prep schools, colleges, and law school. Fast forward and he prefers the people at the youth football city league to the club youth lacrosse, in fact, I have to go to those because he hates them so much and insists they are "your people". I looked and saw what he meant. He's right.
Posted by: dagny at January 06, 2011 10:11 AM (d2Pb5)
Posted by: t-bird at January 06, 2011 10:12 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: joeindc44 at January 06, 2011 01:46 PM (QxSug)
Anybody catch Rush yesterday making fun of Cornel West of his idiotic use of "succame" as the past tense of "succumb"?
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 06, 2011 10:12 AM (xxgag)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 06, 2011 10:12 AM (o3bYL)
Posted by: George Wilson at January 06, 2011 10:12 AM (70v0o)
Posted by: Dang at January 06, 2011 10:12 AM (TXKVh)
I've said for years that so-called "progressives" always speak of "the people" as an abstract concept because they don't particularly like individual human beings. They only care about groups: victim groups, racial or gender groups, whatever. They are interested in the collective, the aggregate. The dreams and aspirations of individuals not only does not interest them, it actively scares them -- because sometimes members of their "favored groups" sometimes hold inconvenient opinions. (A black person who happens to be pro-free-market and anti-reparations, let's say.)
And it's entirely within character for rich liberals to sneer at the working class because rich liberals believe that their own wealth reflects their superior moral/ethical ideology. After all, they have been vastly rewarded with wealth and fame, so isn't it true that their beliefs must then also be true? (They don't believe in dumb luck, for the most part, though this accounts for probably 90% of any success Hollywood types enjoy.) For them, liberalism is a moral balm; it is their way of saying, "Yes, I'm rich, but I'm a good guy (or gal)! I have done well by doing good!"
And finally you see the toxic effects of a monoculture at work. Hollywood -- in fact, much of the entire professional entertainment industry -- is monolithically politically liberal. You do meet some libertarian types here and there (Ted Nugent, Kelsey Grammer, Robert Duvall), but most of these people have to achieve a great measure of success and independence before they feel safe in expressing their personal opinions. To run counter to the liberal orthodoxy in the entertainment industry is to blacklist yourself, pretty much. Monocultures are not political constructs per se -- you see the same problem in all walks of life: industry, science, sports, academia, etc. -- but they are heavily influenced by ideology. And nowhere more so than "the arts", where practicioners define themselves -- ther entire self-image -- on not just what they think but on what other people think of them. To be conservative in the entertainment biz is to be one of the walking dead unless you have the personal wealth and connections to overcome the forces directed against you.
If you want to see the utter apotheosis of the modern entertainment-industry liberal, just look at Gwyneth Paltrow. She bad-mouths her own countrymen, mocks their politics, marries some smarmy Brit...but then appears in a movie playing a country-singer, trying to appeal to those very people she clearly loathes so much. Her contempt for these people is manifest: she's on record as mocking their values, their faith, their politics, the very country they live in...and yet she is so convinced of their vapidity and stupidity that she'll make a movie aimed directly at them (and feel no compunctions about cashing the paycheck). She is a loathsome, shallow creature of the idle hours; and yet she is only the model upon which so many "entertainers" are built.
Posted by: Monty at January 06, 2011 10:12 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: taylork at January 06, 2011 10:13 AM (0Hn5w)
Hmm.
Reports of separate explosions at 2 state gov't buildings in Maryland; packages explode, possibly injuring 1 - NBC
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 06, 2011 10:15 AM (pLTLS)
35
it would certainly help if we could articulate our views and core beliefs rather than allowing Sethmcfuckingfarlane define us
Wouldn't it be grand if we controlled the dialogue?
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at January 06, 2011 10:16 AM (Ty06w)
Breaking:
Two packages exploded at MD state offices.
-------
Are the teabaggers upset about health care at it again?
Posted by: Ed Anger at January 06, 2011 10:17 AM (7+pP9)
They are royalists, who favor class distinctions; with them, of course, as the aristocrats - while the rest of us are the 'unter mensch' to be ground under their royal heels. Slavery, and the Democrats were the party of slavery, is just another method and by product of class distinction; after all they (the slaves) have no class - they're hardly even human.
When a liberal talks about racism he is speaking his native tongue; it is a subject he knows well.
When Ted Turner produced the movie Gods and Generals it was no accident that he placed himself in the film as a Confederate General.
Posted by: An Observation at January 06, 2011 10:17 AM (ylhEn)
I'll add to the chronological observation that 1906 occurred even as Teddy Roosevelt was in his second term and the great majority of Americans lived the rural agrarian life. Laboring Americans still fought their own fights locally, actually pre-Wilson, pre-union monopoly and pre-labor laws (laws that applicable bureaucrats ignore in favor of kickbacks). What we've got here is 'failure to communicate'. Equality under the law? Authoritarian monopolization strangled the US industrial golden goose. Some men just can't be reached.
Posted by: maverick muse at January 06, 2011 10:19 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 06, 2011 10:19 AM (xQAv5)
The Left is the most guilty of this - they are quick to consider themselves the enlightened ones, the intelligencia, and somehow nobler and wiser than the common man.
This is what made me drop of of the Architecture Program at the University of Arizona.
The profs refused to concede that there was a possibility that laymen had an affect on the great architectural achievements of history. They assume that 100% of the lasting structure is the result of architectural planning rather than sensible construction. They don't have plans, or instructions from the architects, but they attribute every nuance of construction to them.
Try asking one who built the Parthenon. They'll wax on and on about ancient sculptors and architects, but they never think that someone had to actually build the fuckin' thing.
Posted by: garrett at January 06, 2011 10:20 AM (be8zh)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 10:20 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: Just call me Seth. at January 06, 2011 10:21 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: dagny at January 06, 2011 10:21 AM (d2Pb5)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 10:21 AM (3SBB0)
Hey! We don't know who did this!
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 10:22 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 06, 2011 10:25 AM (RsCf8)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 10:26 AM (3SBB0)
Kaus' idea reminds me somewhat of Charles Murray's article on the proletarianization of the elite. Under Murray's premise, in the past the working class would adopt the habits of the upper class, and hence in Kaus' formulation would appear to be social equals and the lower classes could consider themselves to be such because they would have the outward trappings (dress well in public, no cursing, staying married, etc.). Now, according to Murray, the upper class mimics what we would consider to "low class" behaviors, but they're really sort of playing at it because they can afford to live with the consequences of out-of-wedlock births, poor work habits, etc.
Not exactly the same, but just triggered the memory of Murray's article.
And since the subject of Fox's animated series line up has been broached, does anyone have any idea how Bob's Burgers made it to network television? In all the various previews I've seen there must be at least a couple dozen attempts at humor that all fall flat. Not a single winner and presumeably they're trying to sell us on the show.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at January 06, 2011 10:27 AM (7EV/g)
Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 06, 2011 10:29 AM (Ulu3i)
There's nothing a liberal loves more than an excuse to say the n-word.
Just watch any Quentin Tarantino movie (especially Pulp Fiction). But to them, it's not a slur, you see; it's all keeping it real.
I feel the same sort of formless irritation with white women who date black men simply because...well, it's fashionable to date black guys. The guy himself barely matters to them (and the same is true in the reverse, probably). Miles Davis, in his autobiography, spends thousands of words railing about the injustice and unfairness that blacks experienced at the hands of whites...and then the first thing he does when he gets some money and fame is to throw over his black girlfriend for a white girl. Charlie "Bird" Parker was famous for dating white girls and deliberately treating them like shit to see how long they'd stick around.
I've known white liberals who, given some racially-charged situation, will feel offended on a black person's behalf, even if the black person himself has no issue at all. I was at a showing of some "blaxploitation" films with a friend of mine a number of years ago (who happened to be black and loved this low-rent cinematic swill even more than me), and we sat next to this white couple who kept ostentatiously whispering about how horrible the movies were, all the while casting sidelong glances at my friend to make sure he could hear them. He got so irritated finally that he yelled at them to shut the fuck up. It really made my day. The look on their faces was priceless.
Posted by: Monty at January 06, 2011 10:30 AM (4Pleu)
It's not irrelevant or stupid - it's actually topical.
Our tax dollars fund that pinko commie crap.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 06, 2011 10:30 AM (pLTLS)
Hey! We don't know who did this!
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 02:22 PM (BvBKY)
Never trust simple, religious people who are good with numbers. They'll get you every time.
Posted by: Tami at January 06, 2011 10:31 AM (VuLos)
Seth McFarlane is a ugly fidget with basically no talent. He wouldn't give up some money to maintain his fake status, he'd give it all up. Can you blame him? For once in his life people actually lean down to listen to something he said.
Posted by: Rocks at January 06, 2011 10:31 AM (Q1lie)
92
And what Monty says above about liberals loving the idea of the collective and hating the individual person is all true.
For instance, you'd think that the bums walking the streets of Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA and asking for spare change would have money thrown at them, right?
They don't even *look* at the bums. They walk around them as if they were garbage left on the sidewalk.
One of the absolute worst Docs we ever had was Harvard trained--- fresh out of school. She hated, I mean HATED the experienced staff who knew the ins and outs of long term forensic care and constantly lectured them on their ignorance. She was a societal bigot and didn't hide it because it was 'true' in her twisted mind. . Every patient was a victim of either the community, the people pressing charges, the police or the staff caring for them.
So they manipulated the crap out of her, the staff was quitting left and right and the judges were pissed.
Granted, she lasted all of one month.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at January 06, 2011 10:32 AM (Ty06w)
Posted by: archie bunker at January 06, 2011 10:34 AM (0YS61)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 10:37 AM (3SBB0)
Half of you whiners share the same elitist impulses that you are endlessly bitching about. You are basically saying that Family Guy viewers are less competent than you because they are unable to understand that watching it goes against their moral self interest.
Yes, airing your preference would hurt the bottom line because nobody wants to watch the Christine O'Donnell Variety Hour, even you have decided it would be better and more uplifting and would promote our general welfare. Thanks for your concern though.
Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at January 06, 2011 10:37 AM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Dang at January 06, 2011 02:07 PM (TXKVh)
Those shows have an audience of about 3 million max, which is a relatively small portion of the populace, far fewer than the prog elitist fuckwits on the network news draw. And if our betters do watch them, it's to laugh at the unsophisticated biker trash, flyover rubes, slack-jawed provincials, and snowbilly hicks present therein.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at January 06, 2011 10:37 AM (IoUF1)
Brief FB excerpt re: the scrunt who fired Juan Williams...
"Washington, DC January 6, 2011 - The NPR Board of Directors announced today that it has completed its review into the facts and circumstances leading to the termination of NPR's contract with senior news analyst Juan Williams. The review also included an examination of how other NPR analysts and correspondents have been treated under the NPR Ethics Code with respect to on-air comments. The independent members of NPR's Board (the "Board") worked with outside legal counsel, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP ("Weil"), to gather information related to the contract termination."
I'm sure her replacement will be a real gem.
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 06, 2011 10:37 AM (hUf/c)
I read a quote by Thomas Sowell a while ago to the effect that the reason the elites do such idiotic things is becuase they have abandon common sense and the reason that they have abandon common sense is that it is so damn common.
I think that liberalism's attraction for supposedly intelligent people is concisely expressed in that thought. To be less concise, lefties would be adrift without a belief that they are superior to average person. They may have a crummy job, a low income and a rotten education but to embrace leftard principles is to identify themselves with what they perceive as an elite.
The lumpenproles have an important role in this exercise. They (we) serve as the foils against which their superiority can be displayed. That's why the Left is so resolute in seeing conservatives only in caricature -- racist, gay-hating, unworldly, Bible-reading, terrified of anything new or different. "Bitter clingers," as someone once observed. It's soooo self-affirming to be the opposite of all of those things. On the other hand, real conservatives, with educations, experiences and achievements -- well, they're studiously ignored because they're just not so easy to feel superior about.
Viewing the world in the same way as the lumpenproles would knock the props out from under this rickety tower of feel-good. Thus, the leftard is reflexively contrarian. Love of country? That can only come from ignorance of how awful America truly is. Assimilation? Only a knuckledragger would fear contact with other cultures. It takes an enlightened progressive to appreciate the beautiful tapestry that cultural diversity lends to society. And if that foreign culture also happens to be anti-Western? Its a double win!
In this light, these people can be read like a book, and frankly it isn't very flattering. Also, every act and statement of Obozo, an absolute paradigm of this ilk, may be understood in this context.
Posted by: Cicero at January 06, 2011 10:40 AM (QKKT0)
Another court jester who fancies himself to be king.
Seth - go back to dancing and jingling your little bells, fool. Make me laugh for a half hour. That's your only purpose. Get to it, boy.
Posted by: Weew at January 06, 2011 10:41 AM (p05LM)
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 06, 2011 10:42 AM (02uN6)
If our tax code were capable of quantifying smug self-satisfaction and extracting that from our citizens, you'd find Seth MacFarlane suddenly on the side of small, limited government.
Prepare to be plagiarized!
(Seriously, Ace, that sentence is just beautiful.)
Posted by: FireHorse at January 06, 2011 10:44 AM (sWynj)
If there was equality of profession to talent, McDouchebag would be scrawling his cartoons on the scratch paper in his cubicle in a call center and telling his lame jokes in the lunch room. Instead, some genius at Fox thinks it their network should be American Idol, Glee, and Seth McDouchebag cartoons
McDouchebag is a bitter man because he knows he can never equal Trey Parker or Matt Groening
Posted by: kbdabear at January 06, 2011 10:46 AM (vdfwz)
You're right, Ace, Liberals want a class system. That's why they envy what Europe has (royals vs. peasants, ie, you are born into where you go and you stay there) and why they hate what America has (everyone has an equal say).
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 06, 2011 10:46 AM (bvfVF)
Posted by: Holger at January 06, 2011 10:47 AM (YxGud)
Posted by: Oldsailor at January 06, 2011 10:47 AM (PiO8s)
Liberals (especially rich, limousine liberals) know that they didn't get where they are by dint of moral fortitude and courage. Secretly, they're afraid they don't have enough to succeed at anything beyond being rich liberals. They're pretty darn sure they couldn't survive in "the real world" by having actually to work (say, as a construction worker, or a computer programmer).
So they delude themselves into believing that their oh-so-wonderful talents put them in some aristocracy of talent in order to prevent themselves from realize that any one of those "teabaggers" is worth more to society than all of them combined.
However, they can't quite bring themselves to fully indulge in their delusion, so they must strike out at any evidence that said delusion is incorrect.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 06, 2011 10:49 AM (8y9MW)
Regardless of how Ted Turner chooses to glamorize his self perception, there's no way that he exemplifies the honorable stature of Stonewall Jackson or any Confederate General.
And regardless of how thoroughly revisionist PC history pervades today's nearsighted public, the unifying theme in the Southern Confederacy was Sovereign State Rights. The "crackers" fought that war to defend the Independence their families had won fighting the British Monarchy along with the North. And the South wasn't about to allow the North to assume authoritarian Congressional taxation higher on the export of raw Southern goods but lower not manufactured Northern goods. The poor white farmers weren't slave owners but share croppers until they were displaced by technology during the Dust Bowl coinciding with inflated Wall Street speculation bursting to crash for those without employment into the subsequent Great Depression. And yes, racism existed throughout America during the 19th Century, every bit as viciously up North and in the Midwest as down South. Ask any Native American, Spaniard, or relocated African, Irishman, Italian, Eastern European, or Asian. Ask Americans of Germanic descent during WWI and Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. But get past it instead of staying stuck on stupid.
Posted by: maverick muse at January 06, 2011 10:50 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: joeindc44 at January 06, 2011 10:53 AM (QxSug)
Most of them still know what happened to the aristocrats in the aftermath of the French Revolution, and what happened to them in the wake of the Bolshevik revolution, even those sympathetic to it
Posted by: kbdabear at January 06, 2011 10:55 AM (vdfwz)
Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at January 06, 2011 10:56 AM (eCAn3)
That whole 'these crackers don't know that redistributive government best fits their self-interest' crap was popularized by that Thomas Frank creature in 'What's the Matter With Kansas?' Poor boy just can't fathom how 'Here, take this; I stole it just for you!" doesn't resonate with those poor silly God-botherers. Since Frank is a historian, he just takes the economic wonderful- ness of liberal statism as a given. The whole problem of running out of other people's money to give away escapes him. I dabbled into several of his columns in the Wall Street Journal; if I wanted snot, I'd have blown my nose for it. Bitchy little creep.
-One of the funniest South Park episodes had Zawahiri slamming Family Guy as the same joke over and over. Plus it's really, really badly drawn!-
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at January 06, 2011 10:58 AM (ERJIu)
Posted by: Cicero at January 06, 2011 10:58 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Ben at January 06, 2011 10:59 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Vic at January 06, 2011 10:59 AM (M9Ie6)
Or they think that if nobody laughed, it's not because the joke wasn't funny, but because the audience was too stupid to understand their highbrow, avant-garde humor. Kind of like we're too unsophisticated to appreciate avant-garde art like a crucifix in a jar of piss.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at January 06, 2011 11:00 AM (IoUF1)
From Drudge:
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) talks about the "disastrous" war that is Afghanistan.
"This war represents an epic failure, a national embarrassment and a moral blight," Rep. Woolsey said.'
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 06, 2011 11:06 AM (hUf/c)
"This war represents an epic failure, a national embarrassment and a moral blight," Rep. Woolsey said.'
Looks like the Dems' wall of unity is cracking up.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 11:08 AM (BvBKY)
Mel Blancs, now there was a class act.
Posted by: toby928™ at January 06, 2011 11:09 AM (S5YRY)
Next, onto the intersection of liberals and wealth...it might be interesting to look at how that came about, actually. Many of the sorts we'd think of as prototypical now (the overpaid gov't or academic type, most specifically) were once not very highly compensated. It's no coincidence the upswing in the money there started after they'd well and truly inserted themselves into places of power.
They entered jobs they considered philosophically acceptable, then found they had neither wealth nor influence. They thought they should be, because they were so darned advanced, and so they fought to shift such towards themselves.
They've been taking the last three or four generations to take what they feel entitled to. They won't yield it willingly, not having invested so much in gaining it. It's ultimately selfish, all about self-satisfaction and self-affirmation with a strong streak of hypocrisy.
Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at January 06, 2011 11:10 AM (GBXon)
Oldsailor: I live near a contractor/carpenter, and we actually trade services: he fixed my deck in return for me setting up a hi-def TV/wireless internet system in his house. Both of us thought we were getting the better of the deal because the computer/internet stuff was easy for me and the carpentry was easy for him. I don't think it's so much the job you do that makes it a classist/elitist thing; it's the attitude you have towards your job (and the attitude you have for people who do other jobs).
I've always thought that waitressing, especially in a busy place, is probably one of the most demanding jobs there is. It's physically difficult, it's stressful, it's mentally demanding (you have to remember lots of stuff), and it takes a fair bit of skill to do it well. Yet waitressing is considered an "entry level" job that almost everyone can do, in spite of the fact that not everyone can do it (or at least, not everyone can do it well). I think this is the core lesson of the "Dirty Jobs" show, and is why I like that show's ethos so much: a job well done is worth being proud of, even if it's something as humble as cleaning out a sewer.
If the apocalypse ever descends upon us, I'm sure I'll be sorry I took up computer programming instead of welding or farming.
Posted by: Monty at January 06, 2011 11:11 AM (4Pleu)
Liberals and leftists and democrats CAN'T subscribe to the notions of shared dignity and social and civil equality, because it goes against everything they've ever done. If they were suddenly to say, "You know what, it really doesn't matter what you earn. The important thing is that nobody treats you like a stupid animal," then half the ghettos and welfare estates in the country would suddenly stand up and say, "Hang on... You mean... You mean the way you've been keeping me here in this filthy apartment with the roaches and the crack cocaine... that's not the way life should be? What the hell? Why'd I ever vote for you!" And boom, they're out of power.
This is actually why I treasure the so-called "ugly American" image we have around the world. Those who embody a true American spirit don't bow and scrape and genuflect to anyone, unless that person has earned and deserves their respect. We don't have a dozen different words for "you," with specific distinctions of which words we're supposed to use when addressing certain people; we let our tone of voice convey our esteem or lack thereof. If I'm in a Japanese onsen and I'm not thrilled with the service, I'm going to say so. If I'm in a Parisian cafe and they serve me cold coffee, I'm going to send it back. If I bump into a wealthy executive in the streets of London, I'll say, "Excuse me, sir!" like I would for anyone else, but I'm not going to grovel for forgiveness. I think that mindset is completely baffling to a lot of the world, most of which has lived under some kind of monarchy or other form of autocratic rule for much of history. Along come these strange Americans with their notions of "equality" and "the will of the people," and they tread on the wrong toes and don't respect the proper etiquette, and they're just so... so... rude, and... and UGLY.
No, we're American. I'll gladly respect your culture, but I want you to recognize mine, too. And part of American culture is calling a spade a spade, not a diamond tiara.
Posted by: MWR at January 06, 2011 11:14 AM (4df7R)
Of course, the other useful 2/3rds of the population who stayed behind were quickly wiped out from a plague contracted from a dirty telephone.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 11:19 AM (BvBKY)
Pentagon to cut spending by $78 billion, reduce troop strength
The Pentagon will have to cut spending by $78 billion over the next five years, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday, forcing the Army and Marine Corps to shrink the number of troops on active duty and eventually imposing the first freeze on military spending since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The surprise announcement from Gates was a reminder for the military establishment - which has benefited from a gusher of new money over the past decade - that it will not remain exempt from painful austerity measures that federal lawmakers say will be necessary to control the soaring national debt.
http://tinyurl.com/2b4od45
Posted by: Tami at January 06, 2011 11:19 AM (VuLos)
Don't call me a hypocrite because I never touch Mohammed, only conservative politicians can be hypocrites.
Mocking Mohammed (PBUH) would make me a racist, and nobody likes a racist.
Especially a decapitated racist
Posted by: Seth McFarce-land at January 06, 2011 11:20 AM (vdfwz)
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 11:21 AM (BvBKY)
In this light, these people can be read like a book, and frankly it isn't very flattering. Also, every act and statement of Obozo, an absolute paradigm of this ilk, may be understood in this context.
Posted by: Cicero at January 06, 2011 02:40 PM (QKKT0)
Very Astute!
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 06, 2011 11:21 AM (/G5LI)
One of the benefits of growing up in a small town (mine was population 500) is that you are exposed to and interact with every economic strata. Some of the kids I went to school with were wealthy, some were dirt poor. But we all attended the same school, went to the same parties, etc. There was nothing alien, socially, about other "castes."
Urban centers, by comparison, are far more socially stratified - my kid attends a high school with 1600 students, but it has much less income variance than my hometown HS of 200 students. These kids infrequently encounter anybody from a different social strata.
Posted by: iowahawk at January 06, 2011 11:22 AM (veL4N)
Regarding the dirty jobs hypothesis, if you've ever read the Hitchhiker's Guide series,
Who needs to learn anything from Kindergarten when there's Douglas Adams' 'Hitchhiker's Guide?'.
Posted by: garrett at January 06, 2011 11:22 AM (be8zh)
...except, perhaps, punctuation and editing skills.
That '?' should not have been annexed by that book title.
Posted by: garrett at January 06, 2011 11:24 AM (be8zh)
O'Reilly lands exclusive pre-game interview with Obama on Superbowl SundayÂ…to air on FOX Broadcasting... Developing...
Posted by: Tami at January 06, 2011 11:26 AM (VuLos)
Posted by: Major Major Major Major at January 06, 2011 11:28 AM (9KkHv)
You'd think that this would have had an effect on him, but it didn't.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 06, 2011 01:54 PM (w28+K)
On the contrary; he is always quick to bemoan the "prejudice" that is supposedly rampant in this country against muslims. What is the mindset that compels one to doggedly defend those that would(and nearly did) murder them? Mcfarlanes shows are unadulterated garbage, and the "fans" of his garbage are fucking retards, who think that only THEY are hip and smart enough to "get" all of his "humor".
Posted by: The Drizzle at January 06, 2011 11:29 AM (ysCLj)
Except for his political thought. That is laughable.
Posted by: nickless at January 06, 2011 11:34 AM (MMC8r)
Being a doctor, he uses his hands and mind to do valuable things, and can appreciate similar talents in somebody else. If he were an academic or lib politician (or even an establishment Repub) he would think you're garbage.
The doctor actually has to be able to perform. Failure means somebody in his care could die. In addition to the burden of having somebody they know personally die as a result of their failure, they will be sued six ways to sunday.
Pols and academics don't have to perform. There is no consequence for failure and they can always blame it on somebody else. If somebody dies as a result of their failure, it's most likely nobody they know, some stupid Xtianist in flyover country or one of those icky violent uneducated people in uniform overseas. Norman Mailer and Mike Huckabee are two prime examples. They both got violent sociopaths let out of jail, and people died as a result. Neither of them took responsibility for their actions or paid any price. Mailer is a hero to the left, and we're told by the media that Huckabee is the only man who can beat Obozo.
Ayn Rand had the elitists fuckwits nailed when she wrote Atlas Shrugged. The wealthy elite non-producers hated the producers, and manipulated the poor non-producers against them. The producers respected and admired each other, regardless of wealth. The wealthy female railroad executive had tremendous respect and admiration for the lowliest brakeman on one of her trains simply because he did his job well and didn't bitch about it and she was just as comfortable talking to him as she was a fellow captain of industry, while the elites hated them both.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at January 06, 2011 11:35 AM (IoUF1)
I remember when Hillary had her profound revelation, at the age of 50, that even charwomen are people too, and worthy of respect. Rather than being properly shamed that this thought didn't occur to her until she was middle aged, she rushed out to spread her new found insight to us, the great unwashed. Because, if she just thought of it, surely no one else ever had.
Posted by: toby928™ at January 06, 2011 11:36 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at January 06, 2011 02:58 PM (ERJIu)
Beat me to the Thomas Frank mention. It's sad that Seth MacFarlane thinks Thomas Frank is a deep thinker.
Posted by: stuiec at January 06, 2011 11:38 AM (Di3Im)
But I know they are all raaacists!
Posted by: JEANNIE - MT at January 06, 2011 11:40 AM (GdalM)
That whole 'these crackers don't know that redistributive government best fits their self-interest' crap was popularized by that Thomas Frank creature in 'What's the Matter With Kansas?' Poor boy just can't fathom how 'Here, take this; I stole it just for you!" doesn't resonate with those poor silly God-botherers. Since Frank is a historian, he just takes the economic wonderful- ness of liberal statism as a given. The whole problem of running out of other people's money to give away escapes him. I dabbled into several of his columns in the Wall Street Journal; if I wanted snot, I'd have blown my nose for it. Bitchy little creep.
Beautifully said.
Posted by: Randy at January 06, 2011 11:42 AM (D0PNd)
Monty, I posted a link to an article about a music festival in Savannah this Spring that you may be interested in on the Top Headlines thread, early in the thread..
Posted by: Vic at January 06, 2011 11:44 AM (M9Ie6)
And what Monty says above about liberals loving the idea of the collective and hating the individual person is all true.
For instance, you'd think that the bums walking the streets of Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA and asking for spare change would have money thrown at them, right?
They don't even *look* at the bums. They walk around them as if they were garbage left on the sidewalk.
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 02:26 PM (3SBB0)
This reminds of the Peanuts strip where one of the characters (can't remember which one) says : "I love humanity. It's people I can't stand."
Posted by: Book Geek at January 06, 2011 11:46 AM (1+OO5)
his habit of breaking into the characters of Stewie and Quagmire a drop of a hat would get annoying to the point of wanting to punch him.
Oh, it wouldn't take that long, rest assured. I want to punch him right between his caterpillar eyebrows based solely on that smarmy shit-eating grin of his. I may be of a lesser social class than Little Lord Fuckpants, but I can kick his ass, which is a pretty good social equilizer.
Where does this little shit get this idea that he's better? His shows are sophomoric and crass; and they're poorly done at that.
Posted by: UGAdawg at January 06, 2011 11:48 AM (aO1W9)
Beat me to the Thomas Frank mention. It's sad that Seth MacFarlane thinks Thomas Frank is a deep thinker.
It's sad that anybody thinks Thomas Frank is a deep thinker. He's what you get when you cross Garrison Kellior with Richard Blackwell: 'Oh, gawd, you people! Worst-dressed economic thinking ever! And what-ever is in that casserole?????'
Scroll up to iowahawk's post above, hit the link to his website on his name, and search for Heart of Redness to watch a master at work on this same theme. You'll thank me, you will.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at January 06, 2011 11:52 AM (ERJIu)
Posted by: archie bunker at January 06, 2011 02:34 PM (0YS61)
You consistantly reach new levels of being a clueless dicksucker.
Posted by: The Drizzle at January 06, 2011 11:52 AM (ysCLj)
Where does this little shit get this idea that he's better? His shows are sophomoric and crass; and they're poorly done at that.
You haven't even seen my State of the Union speech yet!
Posted by: Barack Obama, President and Chief Prom Queen Of The United States at January 06, 2011 11:55 AM (ERJIu)
hey I drive a truck in NYC is that blue collar enough for you?
Your buddies in the Sanitation Department probably made that just heaven on earth over the last few days, eh, john Ryan?
Posted by: Barack Obama, President and Chief Prom Queen Of The United States at January 06, 2011 11:56 AM (ERJIu)
Scroll up to iowahawk's post above, hit the link to his website on his name, and search for Heart of Redness to watch a master at work on this same theme. You'll thank me, you will.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at January 06, 2011 03:52 PM (ERJIu)
Thanks - I read that once before, long ago.
Posted by: stuiec at January 06, 2011 12:06 PM (Di3Im)
The paradox: Seth MacFarlane thinks he is making a big sacrifice by opposing the TEA Party agenda, because of the large absolute number of dollars his stance potentially costs him. He thinks that the TEA Partiers are not selfless (since they're only offering to forego benefits that are chump change to MacFarlane) so much as they are easily-manipulated dummies.
But the common-sense view is that the widow's mite is worth much more than the rich man's millions: a sacrifice that is small in absolute terms may be enormous in the context of the person making it.
And MacFarlane completely fails to get that TEA Partiers might seek to make short-term sacrifices of benefits if that improves the long-term prospects this country offers to their children and grandchildren.
Posted by: stuiec at January 06, 2011 12:14 PM (Di3Im)
That brings me to an interesting thought - a lot of the liberal/media elite really don't seem to worry about the long-term future, for their kids and grandkids. I wonder if this is because so many in the media/entertainment complex are really rich and/or gay, neither of which group has to sweat their kids' future?
Posted by: Holdfast at January 06, 2011 12:15 PM (Gzb30)
Posted by: archie bunker at January 06, 2011 02:34 PM (0YS61)
You consistantly reach new levels of being a clueless dicksucker.
Posted by: The Drizzle at January 06, 2011 03:52 PM (ysCLj)
My ex-wife posts here??
Posted by: tangonine at January 06, 2011 12:15 PM (x3YFz)
But I know they are all raaacists!
Posted by: JEANNIE - MT at January 06, 2011 03:40 PM (GdalM)
I grew up in Twin Bridges. Joined the military at 18 and never went back. There's some strange mofos in MT.
Do miss the fishing, though.
Posted by: tangonine at January 06, 2011 12:18 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Rod Rescueman at January 06, 2011 12:24 PM (QxGmu)
Posted by: billhedrick at January 06, 2011 12:28 PM (bnZCa)
Wanna bet?
Posted by: Dan Snyder at January 06, 2011 12:29 PM (CE2wR)
Wanna bet?
Posted by: Dan Snyder at January 06, 2011 04:29 PM (CE2wR)
Indeed. And if by "spent" you meant "put to work" I could put 100 times that amount to good use. Investments in business, job creation, giving, scholarships... shit. I could go through $50M in 3 months. Easy.
Posted by: tangonine at January 06, 2011 12:32 PM (x3YFz)
And regardless of how thoroughly revisionist PC history pervades today's nearsighted public, the unifying theme in the Southern Confederacy was Sovereign State Rights. The "crackers" fought that war to defend the Independence their families had won fighting the British Monarchy along with the North. And the South wasn't about to allow the North to assume authoritarian Congressional taxation higher on the export of raw Southern goods but lower not manufactured Northern goods. The poor white farmers weren't slave owners but share croppers until they were displaced by technology during the Dust Bowl coinciding with inflated Wall Street speculation bursting to crash for those without employment into the subsequent Great Depression. And yes, racism existed throughout America during the 19th Century, every bit as viciously up North and in the Midwest as down South. Ask any Native American, Spaniard, or relocated African, Irishman, Italian, Eastern European, or Asian. Ask Americans of Germanic descent during WWI and Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. But get past it instead of staying stuck on stupid.
Posted by: maverick muse at January 06, 2011 02:50 PM (H+LJc)
Funny how this subject gets brought up. I just finished discussing it on the "Reading the Constitution in Congress" Thread. My points were similar to yours.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 06, 2011 01:08 PM (/G5LI)
Posted by: Seth McFarlane at January 06, 2011 01:18 PM (zgZzy)
Posted by: Running Hobo at January 06, 2011 02:37 PM (l1oyw)
Posted by: timp at January 06, 2011 03:15 PM (Cv4fQ)
Posted by: Marty at January 06, 2011 08:23 PM (5awHn)
www.fashionspaceonline.com is one of the great resource for brand new fashionable clothing, shoes and accessories.
Here are the main products that we deal with:
Shoes: Nike Air Jordan, Air Force 1, Nike Air Jordan AFJ Fusion, Dunk SB, Nike Air Max, Air Shox Running Shoes, Nike Air Zoom Dunkesto, Air Yeezy, Nike Work Boots, ACG, Nike Foamposite, Gucci, Prada, Puma Ferrari, Supra, Ato Matsumoto, Lacoste, James, Kobe, Converse, Creative Recreation, CR DICOCO, Ed hardy, Evisu, Mauri, Coogi, Dsquared, Ice Cream, New Balance, Greedy Genius, Clae Shoes and Sneakers.
Jeans: Evisu, Gucci, Armani, Bape BBC, Red Monkey, G-Star, Levis, Diesel, Versace, Prada, Louis Vuitton, Ed Hardy, True Religion, Coogi, Christian Audigier, Affliction, Laguna Beach, Iceberg, Crown Holder, Roca wear, Dolce & Gabbana, Artful Dodger, Blac Label, Rock & Republic Jeans Shorts and Pants.
T-shirt: BBC, Bape, G-Star, Evisu, Coogi, Armani, LV, 5ive jungle, Akademiks, Smet, A & F, Affliction, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier, Blac Label, Polo, Lacoste, Crown Holder, Dolce & Gabbana, Versace, Ecko, Gucci, Adidas, Nike, Levis T-shirts and dress shirts.
Other Accessories: Chanel, Chloe, Coach, Dior, Gucci, Fendi, LV, Juicy, Prada, D&G, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier Leather Handbag, Purse and Wallets.
Rolex, Breitlint, JACOB & CO. Cartier, Gucci, Ed Hardy Watches.
D&G, Okley, Fendi, Coach, Chanel, Gucci, Prada, Armani, Versace, Burberry, Ray.Ban, Ed hardy, Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Cartier Sun Glasses
Armani, CK, D&G, LV, Versace, Ed Hardy, Diesel, Gucci, polo, Prada, Puma, Versace, G-star Underwears.
Juicy, Bikini, Ed Hardy, A&F, Polo, Christian Audigier Swimming Wear, Bikini, Bathing suits.
Bape, Ed Hardy, New Era, Coogi, Gucci, New era with light, Louis Vuitton, Monster Energy Caps
DSQ, D&G, LV, Bape, Armani, Gucci, Chanel, Boss, Affliction, Versace, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier Belts.
Welcome to contact us by MSN: babydress898@hotmail.com .Thanks!
Posted by: China-store at January 07, 2011 04:17 AM (t24Na)
Posted by: cackfinger at January 07, 2011 07:29 AM (HpG1y)
Their existence in such large numbers is proof that our civilization is in decline. I am quite serious about that. In a healthy society there would be few leftists.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at January 08, 2011 01:50 AM (/gY4D)
Re Mickey Kaus and social equality, he hasn't given up on it. See, for example, his post from last week:
Krugman vs. the Whippersnappers! Immigration and Inequality.
Posted by: Dave at January 08, 2011 10:46 PM (ddUEh)
Posted by: Dave at January 08, 2011 10:47 PM (ddUEh)
"This horrific event offers the president a chance to show leadership qualities that heÂ’s inexplicably hidden away in some blind trust."
In spite of evidence to the contrary this dunce still thinks there is a body in that suit. "Inexplicably hidden"? I think not. You can't hide what was never there in the first place.
Posted by: Barbaras at January 10, 2011 08:25 AM (hMMmI)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2481 seconds, 314 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Y-not at January 06, 2011 09:35 AM (IDL9N)