Adele Stan and the spirit of loathing!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2013

Taking it right to the limit: Wow! By the time we finished reading Adele Stan, she almost had us despising Obama.

We’ll almost surely return to her piece at some point later this week. In the meantime, it's a fascinating piece of reading. In our view, it's a testimonial to the prehistoric longing to loathe all the others.

Stan seems quite sure that the others are bad. Prehumans and those who came along later have always felt sure of this judgment. "Beloved Community" Stan's ass!

Final note: This is Stan at 51 percent. Imagine the piece she could have composed if Obama had done somewhat better!

20 comments:

  1. Unquestionably, President Obama repudiated much of the Tea Party's ideology, but the way he did it was below "dog whistle" frequencies.

    I got the feeling that he has given up on "lead" and "follow", and was simply saying, "Get out of the way."

    But nicely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Below "dog whistle" frequencies. :) Bob's starting to sound like Dowd. I do find her amusing and clever.

      Delete
  2. I have no problem with Obama endorsing big government. He won the election that's what he supports.

    I deplore the use of race to attack conservatives. Not only is the accusation false, but it hurts black Americans IMHO. It makes them less willing to work with conservatives on issues helpful to blacks. And, it keeps blacks voting Democratic even when the Democratic policies help others, such as the teachers' unions, at the expense of blacks.

    Stan says the Republicans were already "sufficiently anti-woman" to vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Act. In fact, that act has nothing to do with women. It changes the statute of limitations regardless of gender. IMHO that act is a gift to the plaintiffs' attorneys. They gave a great deal of money to Obama and other Democrats, so a return gift is only fair.

    BTW I am living proof that Obama was wrong when he said "The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative." These programs, along with high tax rates, sure sap my initiative. I could be out working. Instead I sit home writing comments on blogs and enjoying other recreational activities. I live comfortably on my Social Security income, as well as some savings. I get the very best of medical care from Medicare.

    Working people pay for my generous benefits. OTOH if I were go out rustle up some consulting clients, most of what I earned would go to others. I'd only keep around a third of what I earned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I live comfortably on my Social Security income, as well as some savings.

      Interesting. Either you have a lot of "some savings" or you are getting some pretty nice SS income, either of which means you made a pretty good salary during your working years. The same cannot be said for most minorities, or even most Americans in general. We will not be living particularly comfortably, and cutting our SS and Medicare benefits via "reforms" will not improve our lot. Except perhaps by causing us to die off quicker, which I guess would put an end to our misery but isn't exactly humane...

      I get the very best of medical care from Medicare.

      Which presumably means you are over 55, probably over 65 if you are on SS. I imagine being an old fart does a lot more to "sap your initiative" than the specter of having to kick in part of whatever you earn into the community kitty to support those less able to earn for themselves.

      ...if I were go out rustle up some consulting clients, most of what I earned would go to others. I'd only keep around a third of what I earned.

      Sadly, No! Considering that the top income tax rate is under 40%, and that only applies to part of your income, I think in fact you'd be more likely to keep 2/3 of what you earned (or more).

      Delete
  3. David in Cal: Lazy sack of shit.
    At least you're honest about it, not like the mouth-breathers on the right who know NOTHING about economics. Can you imagine how stupid one would have to be to hire more company employees just because they got a tax break? "Sure my company can't sell the widgets we made, and we have a warehouse full of inventory, but if I get a tax break I'll hire more employees to make more product I can't sell. People who speak like this are morons, and (at best )should be ignored or laughed out of the room. Instead they get 47% of the national vote or a show on cable "news" and/ or talk radio.

    Berto

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I deplore the use of race to attack conservatives. Not only is the accusation false.."

    Almost let this one get by me. I'll take a link on this one, David in Cal. I'll trade it for a link to Reagan's election kick-off in Philadelphia, MS.

    Berto

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are conservatives racists? Maybe the following event is evidence of racism:

      At a Tea Party gathering in 2009, a black man was set upon by three people who called him a n----r and beat him up badly enough to go to the hospital for treatment. Others of their tribe pooh-poohed the attack, saying that the victim hadn't been hurt badly enough to stay in the hospital. The attack got relatively little publicity from the portion of the media favorable to this tribe or from leading politicians of this tribe. Apparently they didn't think this attack was terribly important.

      No doubt you know the punch line. The black victim Kenneth Gladney was the Tea Partier. His attackers were anti-Tea Party union members. And, it was liberals who minimized this attack.

      I think the moral is that liberals are equally vulnerable to the sort of reasoning that holds that one incident proves that an entire party is racist.

      BTW I'm particuarly familiar with the murder of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, because Mickey Schwerner's mother was a long-time teacher in New Rochelle High School, where I'd graduated from. However, I sincerely doubt that the Reagan team was focused on the particular location of one horrible crime that had been committed many years earlier. Tragically Philadelphia Mississippi was hardly unique. In our country's history, many cities have been the location of shameful attacks against black people.

      Delete
    2. Reagan knew exactly what he was doing. Check this out for more:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html?_r=0

      -----------

      BTW, any link to liberals using the Southern Strategy?

      Berto

      Delete
    3. Berto, IMHO Bob Herbert was a partisan hack columnist. He wrote whatever was best for his side. His conclusion that Reagan knew what Philadelphia symbolized means nothing. Note Herbert's lack of evidence. He simply makes an unsupported assertion that, "Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew..."

      Of course you are right to blame Republicans of 44 years ago for their "Southern Strategy". And, I can rightly blame Democrats from the past for supporting slavery and Jim Crow. The movie "Lincoln" reminded me that Dems generally opposed the 13th Amendment freeing the slaves. The notorious 20th century opponents of integration and black equality -- Orville Faubus, Bull Connor, George Wallace, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. -- were all Democrats. The murderers of Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman were Democrats.

      However, it would be entirely unfair to blame today's Dems for the racist Dems of the past, and it's equally unfair to do the same for Republicans.

      Delete
    4. "...IMHO Bob Herbert was a partisan hack"

      Is this from the same partisan hack with the HO which sincerely doubted that the Reagan team was focused on the particular location of one horrible crime that had been committed many years earlier? What do you think Reagan was speaking to when he mentioned "states rights" in that speech?

      BTW, despite the obvious epidemic of fraud perpetrated by bankers and Wall Street which crashed the world's economy, the right was pretty vocal about the crash being caused by Carter's Community Redevelopment Act (i.e. when the shit goes down, blame brown). No reason to go back 44 years when the recent 4 years are a better example.
      Although I suppose IYHO, the right wasn't saying the economic crash was caused by the ni**ers.

      Berto

      Delete
    5. BTW, I apologize for calling you a lazy sack of shit. This is America, and you are free to take no pride in your workmanship.

      Berto

      Delete
  5. David,

    As Reverend Al says,

    "Throw a rock at a bunch of pigs, the one that squeals is the one you hit!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, at least I didn't quote a notorious anti-Semite and hate-monger as an authority.

      Delete
    2. Please don't feed this troll.

      Thank you.

      Delete
  6. Oh my!

    Sounds like the Rev hit a raw nerve!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Raw nerve? Absolutely right, gravymeister. I have a raw nerve regarding Al Sharpton.

      IMHO he's substantially responsible for the riot at Crown Heights, where two innocent people were murdered and the riot at Freddy's clothing mart, where eight people died. He's also is notorious for supporting Tawana Brawley's lies. It's sick that this individual is a Democratic Party leader and even has his own TV show.

      Delete
    2. Good point, Dave. You don't see the GOP parading GWB around after he was substantially responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousand innocent Iraqis.

      Berto

      Delete
  7. I respect MLK at least as much as the next guy, but I don't think that it is reasonable to expect pundits to take the same approach as a saintly Christian preacher. The reality is that there are two parties in the USA and each tries to motivate their members and within each party there are factions that try to motivate their sympathizers. If TDH has a complaint about abusive language or incitement to hatred, then it should be more specific about what is beyond the pale.

    ReplyDelete
  8. D in Cal has hijacked comments again, alas, when it is Bob S who has completely missed the boat.

    Obama is not a journalist. Nor is the Salon piece a "journalistic" piece. It's more a true op-ed.

    Bob S's objections? Outlandish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Outlandish, indeed. With so much at stake, including the survival of the planet, and with such extreme positions taken by the opposition, such that Obama is to the right of Richard Nixon on domestic policy, and yet still reviled as a "socialist" -- in this climate, what competitive liberal discourse would be acceptable to Bob S.? Hard to know. Even more so, when *any* Democratic president is regarded as illegitimate by a large proportion of the population..

      Then again, if Rachel Maddow or Michelle Rhee were the titular head of the Tea Party, maybe hard words, of which there aren't nearly enough, would be better tolerated here.

      Delete