Charlie Pierce hits a home run on John Edwards

This aspect of the "elitist" trope always floors me.

Dammit, I WANT the President of the United States to know more than I do. I WANT him to be smarter than I am. In fact, I'd like it if he were one of the smartest muh-fuhs in the whole damn country.

 

Yes, but can your smarty pants president throw a strike wearing a kevlar vest, then enoy a nice non-alcoholic beer afterward? And will he put a t-ball field on the White House lawn? I doubt it.

 

Maybe I should have clarified that -- in terms of foreign relations and complicated economic matters, maybe it would help having a genius on board. But too many presidential candidates and other elected officials want to tell us how to raise our children, what we can or can't eat, drink or smoke, what we can or can't have on our DVD players, and what we can or can't teach our children, or what we can or can't have them taught in public schools.

I don't need Al Gore lecturing me on being green or Hilary telling me it takes a village to raise my kid.

 

So, just to recap: We have an overwhelming amount of abusive parents, parents who became parents too soon, parents who don't have the wherewithal or intelligence to provide the opportunity for a better life for their children. We have an absolutely abominable obesity problem in this country and a disgusting prevalence of fast, cheap (and I don't mean inexpensive), processed food that does nothing but make us bigger and more prone to things like heart disease. Alcoholism is an enormous problem in this country, and despite the measures that have been taken to the contrary smoking is still also very prevalent. I'll skip on the DVD thing, because I don't think you referring to how bad movies are nowadays. As for what we can or can't teach our children, kids aren't learning enough to succeed in college, or in life, on average, and dropout rates are still unconscionably high for our considerable level of collected wealth and the opportunities that do exist when they're made accessible.

But you're right, let's not change a thing. Everything is just perfect, and we CERTAINLY shouldn't rely on our elected officials to find a way to fix things.

 

And I don't need George W. Bush telling me we need to curb stem-cell research, or teach abstinence, or that we need to go to war with Iraq. And yet, here we both are.

 

A pundit I heard on TV described Edwards as one of the most genuine candidate's he's met, which surprised him because following the candidate on TV he thought Edwards was a phony.
I don't understand the criticism of Edwards taking on the Two America's theme. People say its class warfare or income redistribution, but in the last 20 years the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen. This too is income redistribution but because it takes money from the poor to the rich, and yes its called capitalism, nobody has a problem with it.

 

That excerpt spinning27 posted made me smile... great stuff... I don't suppose there's a link for the entire article anywhere?

 

Charlie Pierce related...

He does a weekly spot on Only a Game, NPR's sports show out of WBUR in Boston.
www.onlyagame.org

 

Just look at this joke for example and see how it pigeon holes democrats and republicans:

Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.The answer can be found
by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children.
Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the
corner, locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at
you.
You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do
you do?
................................................................
Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of
his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does
this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to
wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while
he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise
taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street
that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for
few days and try to come to a consensus.
........................................................................
.............................................
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
........................................................................
.............................................
Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the
Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"
Son: "Can I shoot the next one!"
Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!=

 

Nice.

 

"Nice." Yeah, real nice. The "Democrat" in the joke reminds me of some other "nice" thoughts.

One of the central lines of bullshit in this or any other war is that one must be either a pacifist or some other type of dove in order to oppose the war in question.

I've read syndicated columnists either so stupid or so disingenuous that they portray anyone opposed to the Iraq war as either a pacifist or near-pacifist who doesn't understand that war, although cruel and tragic, is necessary.

My Republican sister sends me email forwards. A couple of weeks ago I got one about a flock of sheep. The sheep were divided because their shepherd carried a gun. Some of the sheep said that the gun was evil and wrong. The more realistic sheep explained that the gun was necessary to protect the flock from wolves. The wolves attack, are shot; sheep rejoice. The moral of the story? The Bush Administration's policy in Iraq must be supported. Dammit to hell!

As if it were impossible to oppose this or any other war simply on the grounds that as policy, the war is totally fucking stupid. This is classic Orwellian psuedo-logic: the opposing viewpoint isn't even possible. No need to refute the dissenting view...in fact, to do so would admit that it exists as an option. It's not even possible, supposedly, to think that the Iraq war, as it is, isn't the most effective policy for fighting terrorism. If you're opposed to the Iraq war, you're not opposed to terrorism. What? It's not possible to oppose the war based on practical concerns? Are we so terminally infantile that we can't come out from under the cover of facile nonsense and use reason about something this important?

I have no idea why people can't see through this obvious bullshit. It's so far removed from logic, it's not even a fallacy; it's just incoherent. If you don't have the moral courage to abandon familiar cliches and be rational about matters of life and death, then you're the pussy.

 

As if that tack isn't taken, and taken often, by the other side of the political spectrum. Hell, without that approach, current-day American politics wouldn't exist. You wanna argue your point of view, fine. But if, in so doing, you suggest that your side is open-minded and the other side is not (the height of hypocrisy for Republicans and Democrats, BTW), well, you are being disingenuous.