Tuesday Highlights

Hey.

  1. Pretty.
  2. Left wing smear machine, first step, misinterpret.
  3. The President’s tendency to fabulous talk, first step, attack the straw may.
  4. Hmm. Here’s to hoping that “married” doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means.
  5. A very very strange custom noted.
  6. Heh.
  7. An interesting trend.
  8. There may be substantial problems with Mr Cruz, as viewed by left or right … but this particular leftist manages not to note a single one in his diatribe. Seriously looks like Satan and takes long showers!?
  9. Of profit and place, a map.
  10. A life without hardship and a few millions banked away will do that.
  11. Bad men can make art and science and stuff. Do we connect the two and reject it on account of source? Or not.  I’d have to say, not … after all Jesus came in to the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. And as I am first of such, seems to me to reject another sinner’s attempts at doing good would be uncharitable.

12 Responses to Tuesday Highlights

  1. re: 10 Class warfare and hatred of children by the right, very distasteful.

  2. Boonton,
    If you never lack for a thing you will likely not care about obtaining it. Why you pretend that is hatred of children is beyond my ken.

  3. Exactly what merits the contempt for Chelsea Clinton in both the blog and the reference to it? That she doesn’t care about money? If she did say she cared a lot about money you’d jump on her for being shallow. If she doesn’t care about money it’s because she grew up rich.

    Whose else who grew up rich (Bush, Romney, any of McCain’s kids, Trump, etc.) gets this like treatment? Clinton derangement syndrome is a very noticable but odd affliction on the right…it’s only treatment seems to have been when Obama started beating Hillary in the polls…at which point the condition immediately shifted to Obama derangement syndrome. Unfortunately we are seeing signs the treatment was not a cure and the condition is due to flare up again.

  4. Boonton,
    You do realize as part of her setup to run for the Presidency she’s been running the “I’m a regular Joe” script and demonstrating how hard up for money she’s been (hint: this is alas not actually the case). Which is why the point that her daughter doesn’t realize that making money might be important as a sign she has never noticed a lack of same weakens that particular narrative that Ms Clinton is trying to peddle.

    Seeing as the GOP is the party of the middle class currently and the upper/lower class (financially speaking) is the province of the Dems (broadly speaking) and the Democrats are currently and historically both sensitive to and are the primary users of class warfare as a campaign technique is why you suspect this is the ploy being used by Mr Bainbridge. It is not, the suspicion of yours that this is the case only betrays you Democratic sensibilities to class warfare as such.

  5. Chelsea’s statement:

    “I’ve tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t. That wasn’t the metric of success I wanted in my life.”

    A casual, non-deranged reader would not read this statement as her asserting she has no concept of earning a living, the importance of being able to pay your bills etc. In fact, asserting that money is not a ‘metric of success’ in life is the type of thing a lot of people say…even those who probably would be better off if they started measuring their life more by money.

    See what happens here is the patients brain constructs an imaginary world populated by imaginary people. In that imaginary world, Chelsea Clinton exists as an extension of the evil Clinton family. The types of things the patient imagines Chelsea might say is then graphed over the actual things the real life Chelsea says creating the physical manifestation….thrashing around at statements and comments that strike the casual observe as either banal or trivial or both.

  6. Boonton,
    Uhm. You’re making stuff up now. In your imaginary world this “A casual, non-deranged reader would not read this statement as her asserting she has no concept of earning a living, the importance of being able to pay your bills etc.” … Nobody is claiming she has “no concept of making a living”. The claim is that she this is a consequence of living surrounded by wealth all her life, which contrasts with the recent statement made by her mom.

    No actual demonization or denigration of anyone. Just a counter to Ms Clinton’s claim that she has had hard times and knows what scraping by feels like.

    Like the President you seem to want to strike at arguments which are easily refutable but, alas are not actually being made by anyone.

  7. Boonton,

    Exactly what merits the contempt for Chelsea Clinton in both the blog and the reference to it?

    By me? Cite. By Mr Bainbridge, … what contempt?

    Whose else who grew up rich (Bush, Romney, any of McCain’s kids, Trump, etc.) gets this like treatment?

    Which of those parents claimed a life of hard knocks?

  8. The claim is that she this is a consequence of living surrounded by wealth all her life, which contrasts with the recent statement made by her mom….No actual demonization or denigration of anyone. Just a counter to Ms Clinton’s claim that she has had hard times and knows what scraping by feels like.

    Actually IMO many people with a lot less wealth than the Clintons would say the same thing, esp. when they are young adults. As for no demonization of her is intended, note the Professor’s comment:

    There are very few things I find more annoying than left-liberal trust fund babies like Clinton

    Clearly this is not simply a case of not caring about how much money a person or family has. Chelsea’s getting a fair share of hate here if your only intent is to try to discredit a claim her mother made.

    And you’re bending over backwards to discredit a claim that even she isn’t defending. Note, for example, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/hillary-clinton-stumbles-from-dead-broke-to-not-truly-well-off/. The Clinton’s were no doubt technically ‘broke’ after the White House (I actually recall gleeful right wing stories about the Clintons with mounting legal bills and low assets). However that was a brief state of affairs before the book deals and speaking engagements took off. Since she never claimed that they lived on canned spam until Obama selected her Sec. of State, proving that Chelsea never had to wear rags to school doesn’t demonstrate anything.

    Perhaps this might make sense if she was making her post-WH years into some type of rags to riches narrative about hard work and determination but a poorly phased comment doesn’t amount to that and to the degree that such a narrative would be valid it would apply to their early years in their 20’s, long before Chelsea came along.

    It is interesting though that the right seems to have very intense hate for those who actually earn their way to the upper class through merit and hard work. Get into the upper class while earning C-‘s in school and having a rich father, you’re fine. Get there by acing school, and getting scholarships to elite colleges and there’s got to be something elitist or illegitmate about you. To bad that normal ‘pass’ is not extended to Clinton’s daughter.

    Which of those parents claimed a life of hard knocks?,

    Actually I believe Romney had some ancedotes on the stump about his wife having to iron shirts in a one room apartment they ahd while young or something like that. Again it is the the norm in modern American society for the wealthy to:

    1. Assert that money is not an important motivator.
    2. At some point, in some way, they had some hard times…even if it was just a day of doing your own laundry in college.

    Note that in an earlier age, the upper class was not like this. It might be a point of pride that they never had a period where they lacked income or had to do ‘low-class’ labor. Those days sunk sometime before the Titanic I believe.

  9. Boonton,

    It is interesting though that the right seems to have very intense hate for those who actually earn their way to the upper class through merit and hard work. Get into the upper class while earning C-’s in school and having a rich father, you’re fine.

    Again with the making thing up. “find annoying” != “intense hate” … but you know that. Actually, besides possible remarks by myself on who might ever want to pay either Clinton (or for that matter any politician current or ex- 6 figures (or for that matter more than 3) for a speech is something I fail to understand. You’d have to pay me to get me to listen to the same. And honestly I have more contempt for the Kerry type who marries his money than the Clinton’s who graft it from political connections, which is more honestly dishonest. Btw, who really pays for those book deals. Ms Clinton’s publisher certainly is losing their shirt on their deal. One might wonder where that money comes from and why book publishers keep falling for that.

    Actually IMO many people with a lot less wealth than the Clintons would say the same thing, esp. when they are young adults.

    So. My point was that people who say that have never felt money was tight in their family. I don’t see you disagreeing with that at all.

    And you’re bending over backwards to discredit a claim that even she isn’t defending

    She made the statement. Then she tried (by your link) three times to defend. So for much for “not defending”. Offering a defense is … called defending. At this point, I think you are right, she’s not defending it anymore, she’s conceded it was a block-headed out-of-tune thing to pretend.

    Perhaps this might make sense if she was making her post-WH years into some type of rags to riches narrative

    Again with the imagination thing. Nobody (here for example) is claiming she made the rag to riches narrative. What I actually said that she was pretending to common ground with a struggling middle class by claiming she too had to struggle to make ends meet against an uncertain future, which was untrue. Clinton when President tried to connect with the common man by going to McDonalds and so on, which if you actually paid attention demonstrated the reverse, that he was quite unfamiliar with that particular fast food chain.

    Actually I believe Romney had some anecdotes on the stump about his wife having to iron shirts in a one room apartment they had while young or something like that.

    And what would you say to my making an unsubstantiated remark like that. So … if you wish to make the assertion that no Romney has little in common with the struggling middle class and as an example his well to do kids demonstrate that life of wealth …. uhm why do you suspect this would be deranged Romney hate or class warfare? It wouldn’t.

    Furthermore you claimed that you had evidence of hatred for Clinton(s) and Chelsea in this particular post (mine or Mr Bainbridge’s). On inspection you come up with “There are very few things I find more annoying than left-liberal trust fund babies like Clinton.” Yah. Hatred. Sounds more like nothing at all to do with Ms Chelsea and a lot more hangover from the regrettable OWS movement. But hey, you’re on a roll for misinterpretation and exaggeration. Don’t stop now on my account.

  10. And honestly I have more contempt for the Kerry type who marries his money than the Clinton’s who graft it from political connections, which is more honestly dishonest. Btw, who really pays for those book deals. Ms Clinton’s publisher certainly is losing their shirt on their deal.

    For someone against class warfare you seem to spend a lot of time figuring out classes to hate. I don’t care if someone married a rich person. I think marrying for just money is contemptible but I know nothing about Kerry’s marriage.

    So. My point was that people who say that have never felt money was tight in their family

    As I pointed out, this is what is considered the polite thing to say in American culture. Even those who struggled in poverty before getting rich, would most likely say more or less the same thing. For example, I could see JK Rowling saying she doesn’t view money as a metric of success, while her lawyers try to scrub the web of every possible Harry Potter copyright infringement.

    Then she tried (by your link) three times to defend. So for much for “not defending”. Offering a defense is … called defending….

    As is common in the onset of the disease, the patient turns to parsing words with a nearly Talmudic level of scrutiny as if huge mountains of meaning hinge on the most casual of phrases.

    Clinton when President tried to connect with the common man by going to McDonalds and so on, which if you actually paid attention demonstrated the reverse, that he was quite unfamiliar with that particular fast food chain.

    His post-WH heart troubles hint he wasn’t as unfamiliar with McDonalds as you’d like to think. But then this is how populism in America works. The upper class is expected to symbolically demonstrate their connection to ‘regular people’. Hence Warren Buffett is beloved because he indulges in vanilla shakes from Dairy Queen. In a slightly different time such low class indulgences would be seen as a source of embarrassment for his family and class.

    On inspection you come up with “There are very few things I find more annoying than left-liberal trust fund babies like Clinton.” Yah. Hatred. Sounds more like nothing at all to do with Ms Chelsea and a lot more hangover from the regrettable OWS movement.

    The illness progresses. You are the one who hitched your wagon to Bainbridge (“By me? Cite. By Mr Bainbridge, … what contempt?”). Now you’re going to say Mr Bainbridge’s words have nothing to do with Chelsea Clintin, despite calling her out by name? Instead it’s left over anger at the OWS movement? Which, of course, to my knowledge Chelsea was never associated with. But then that’s also typical of the illness, many criticisms of Clintons are in fact stand ins for someone or something else (hippies, baby boomers, 60 radicals, OWS 20 somethings etc.). Hey since coverage has expanded under Obamacare can you try to get your side to stop using the political discussion as a source of free psychotherapy?

  11. Boonton,

    As is common in the onset of the disease, the patient turns to parsing words with a nearly Talmudic level of scrutiny

    Good description of Ms Clinton’s defense. You said she wasn’t defending in a piece that detailed her defenses. This is not “talumudic level of scrutiny” it’s just plain reading of the offered link.

    His post-WH heart troubles hint he wasn’t as unfamiliar with McDonalds as you’d like to think

    Doesn’t mean he actually went there personally … or at all for that matter. McDonald’s food is a lot healthier than popular misconceptions paint it. The Mayor of Chicago Harold Washington ate lots and lots of deep fried chicken leading to his heart problems. Doesn’t mean you’d rub elbows with him personally at Harold’s … his “people” would be doing that for him.

    Now you’re going to say Mr Bainbridge’s words have nothing to do with Chelsea Clinton

    No. I’m saying your claim of hatred and anger is not supported by the text. That’s all.

  12. Good description of Ms Clinton’s defense. You said she wasn’t defending in a piece that detailed her defenses. This is not “talumudic level of scrutiny” it’s just plain reading of the offered link.

    Your assertion was that Clinton was offering a narrative of herself as broke and worried about money (no doubt to show she understands the worries of the middle class). A defense of the statement would be essentially doubling down (“yes I really was poor after the White House, we were bouncing checks, the cable was getting turned off but then we started up the speaking business and writing books and all is well now!”) What you have is a defense of herself (“I should have said it more artfully”) and a shift of the narrative to pre-WH years (i.e. paying off student loans right after college). I see nothing here which merits the scrutiny of Chelsea’s approach to money as anything other than simplistic Clinton-hate. You’re not conducting some type of investigation to refute any comment.

    Speaking of petty Talumudic points that are pretending to be profound revealations:

    Doesn’t mean he actually went there personally … or at all for that matter. McDonald’s food is a lot healthier than popular misconceptions paint it. The Mayor of Chicago Harold Washington ate lots and lots of deep fried chicken leading to his heart problems. Doesn’t mean you’d rub elbows with him personally at Harold’s … his “people” would be doing that for him.

    Bill Clinton had (still has?) his office in Harlam. If over the last fifteen years or so he’s frequently grabbed stuff to eat at local places (McDonald’s or not) what exactly would it demonstrate? (Keep in mind Manhattan is a very celebrity friendly city so it’s not implausible that Clinton could have wowed some local eateries by swinging in, picking up something and signing a few autographs before leaving).

    No. I’m saying your claim of hatred and anger is not supported by the text

    Of course, because you’re now in that “what does ‘is’ mean” phase of your defense where even if Brainbridge wrote “I have such hatred and anger toward Chelsea clinton” you’d be telling us that meant it was a post-modern slam on OWS protestors and pot smoking hippies from Woodstock.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>