Posted on 10/23/2001 4:40:35 PM PDT by occam's chainsaw
Tidbits
• Drudge reports Senator Clinton was booed at the 'Heroes for New York' concert. Our response: "Heroes" did not boo Senator Clinton. This may sound like sacrilege, but most of the cops and firemen in this town are not heroes. They are working stiffs looking for a secure job from which they can retire in 20 years.
The "heroes" mumbo-jumbo should have stopped before now, but lionizing such people seems to have gone beyond the super men who raced up the stairs in those buildings as everyone else ran down. The lauding has gone so far that it now encompasses the schmucks, turds and rejects who clutter up what are otherwise decent professions, until those who are undeserving start to believe they are somehow worthy of the glory, the praise, the attention. (It's also gone so far that a disproportionate amount of the money raised is earmarked for the families of the few hundred emergency personnel, to the disregard of the thousands of other victims and their families.)
Why would these people "boo" Senator Clinton? Not all did, by any report, but those who did are probably a part of the large number of the cops and firemen in this town are politically conservative, from undiverse neighborhoods, not educated much above high school, and as small-town as you can get and still be from New York City. They are, then, the very types who resent efforts made by forward-thinking, worldly politicians, which how Senator Clinton could be described.
People distrust her, and her husband; or rather, the Clintons tend to bring out anti-intellectualism. It's an ugly American past-time, hating the smart. It's everywhere, pervasive in all media, in the schools, in the workplaces, in the newspapers. The Clintons are big, fat targets, too good to resist by people who feel their anti-intellectual tendencies are supported and approved of by others. They feel authorized to criticize the wonks, the policy geeks, the professional bookworms. Unless you sound unassumingly dull, or like country hick, Americans tend to dislike you. If you know what you're talking about, and you're confident, people think you're lying. Hell, even if you're slightly above average—just smarter than 51 percent of the population—that 51 percent tends to distrust you. In much the same way, it's always the idiots and morons who are the biggest conspiracy freaks: they're so dumb they think smart people are just making everything up, too, and so they'll pay heed to the first intelligible lie that comes along.
You see, we Freepers have very delicate constitutions and we require notification something like this:
We also like to maintain relatively clean keyboards.....
Oh yes, don't want a sticky keyboard, do we? ROLOL
I may never live this down...(sigh)
This too shall pass..... I get over it quick.
It is wildly absurd in the extreme when glib, smarmy Leftists who annoint themselves as the elite of civilization start drawing class barriers. As a self-satirizing neo-puritan on a quest for levelling Western culture, Hillary is hardly in a position to look down her nose at anyone. Name one American "liberal" [read:socialist] who is "educated" and a casual safari tour between their ears will point out enough howlers, absurd mistakes, radical detours from common sense, factual nullifications, historical travesties, metaphysical fantasies, ontological bifurcations, fuzzy-wuzzy psychobabble-isms, reductionist social-science lunacies, sophomoric sophistries, mock theoretical pantomimes, conceptual snipe hunts, and outright falsehoods in their twisted muddy minds to fill a set of musty, aging Britannicas in Woody Allen's attic.
Very well put! Thanks for the post.
And let's be frank here, they're making it up as they go along. They're making up the jargon, the conceptual categories, and the paradigmatic posturings as necessity (in their quest for power) dictates. These are by no means the brightest people on the planet. A facility with manipulating linguistic and quantitative variables and symbols does not necessarily mean the manipulator is in touch with reality. Or truth.
Another example. Religion and moralizing are supposed to be bad in liberal mythology, except when Richard Gere happens to be the preacher on love and compassion. Think about it. Playing the "class" card on the working-class cops and firemen of NYC is hardly enlightened, liberal, tolerant, or any of the other fine transcendental qualities which form the text of routine "liberal" incantations.
The notion that Hillary, a woman who married Bill Clinton, is some sort of super-sophisticated guru of wonk enlightenment is, even by "liberal" standards, pushing the plausibility threshold just a tad.
You and me both! It blew my mind last year when drop-out, flunk-out *l G*r* was supposed to be the intellectual candidate. About eight years ago I started asking "Can you imagine B*ll Cl*nt*n or *l G*r* at Control Data Institute ? Ever try BS-ing a computer?"
I mean, they're entitled to rule, aren't they???
Otherwise, they're totally useless, n'est-ce-pas??
In socialist cannibal kingdoms, Hillary and her ilk are 'eaters'. Now that's REAL status!
Just contemplate, for a moment, "liberal" elitism...
Most liberals and socialists in the U.S. are supposedly dedicated to some variation of egalitarianism, equality, etc. Ahem, EQUALITY, just for the record. In fact, they cultivate the levelling principle and mass vulgarization in culture in general. But then, they turn around and claim they are on some higher cognitive pedestal. Michael Kinsley is a classic example. But let's also look at the Richard Gere, Barbara Streisand, and Steven Spielberg types. There is nothing stopping them from sharing their wealth evenly with these "uneducated" working-class types they supposedly seek to help. Socialism in the USA is a highly weird cultural phenomenon. Its proponents contradict themselves on many levels in both their propositional discourse and their actions.
But if they want to complain in shrill tones about uneducated morons, they need look no further than the chicaneries which grew out of their own ultra-Deweyite Columbia Teachers College, the Grand-Poobah of educational sophistry in 20th-century social engineering. Which eggheads have egg on their face now? Their suggestions, that we need more funding and more taxes for moronizing education, are examples of absurd discourse in contemporary American "liberalism" [read:socialism]. SARCASM, IRONY, SATIRE, RIDICULE.
For any liberal or socialist, polymorphous or not, to target working-class Americans for rhetorical abuse specifically with reference to educational deficiencies is, one would naturally gather, an exercise in self-contradiction and self-condemnation. Absurd discourse. An imputation in misadventurous circumlocution. Not sure I have actually read enough Lewis Carroll to do justice to this. He's a Dead White Western Male anyway, right?
I am smart. I am an intellectual. I am a professional bookworm. I am more educated than both the Clintons put together.
And I hate the Clintons.
The same could be said of many of us FReepers: highly educated, constitutionally and socially conservative Clinton-haters.
The problem isn't the Clintons' brains. It's their lack of character.
Some of think the Clintons need to be treated with scorn and derision as long as they live.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.