Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Crow for dough
A nation in which the poor are defined by an income level that in most countries would make them prosperous is a nation that has all but forgotten the true meaning of poverty. A nation in which obesity is largely a problem of the poor (and anorexia of the upper-middle class) does not understand the word "hunger." A nation in which the most celebrated recent cases of racism, at Duke University or in Jena, La., are wholly or mostly contrived is not a racist nation. A nation in which our "division" is defined by the vitriol of Ann Coulter or James Carville is not a truly divided one--at least while Mr. Carville is married to Republican operative Mary Matalin and Ms. Coulter is romantically linked with New York City Democrat Andrew Stein.
Wait...Coulter's dating a Democrat?
I might add a bit - When partisan vitriol becomes a primarily commercial endeavor, the nation is not truly divided. Let's face it - Coulter, Carville, Krugman - being reasonable is obviously a not-for-profit enterprise.
5 Comments:
By 
Assistant Village Idiot, at
Tue Jan 29, 03:53:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Tue Jan 29, 03:54:00 PM:
There is a 2% of the population, largely the mentally ill, that does experience poverty. SSDI benefits are at the moment about $700/month. Even food stamps, Section 8, and Medicaid don't juice that hugely. The other 10% of those below the poverty line include graduate students, recent immigrants, unwed mothers and their children, and others whose situations are more elective.
Even those do not experience deep poverty, however. My sons were Romanian peasants early in life, and lived on bread and lard for over a year when their father was at his lowest alcoholic point. And they knew children poorer than themselves.
What the poor in America do experience is dangerous neighborhoods and hopelessness. But hopelessness is often fed by those who want to "help," using the poor for their own political ends.
By antithaca, at
Tue Jan 29, 05:14:00 PM:
Why, one surely does not mean to suggest that pop culture (whether it's politics, activisism, news, entertainment, etc) is wholly invented to lull the toiling masses while an elite cabal (regardless of political affiliation) reap a staggering, unimaginable profit?
Cuz that's one way of reading the above. Not the smartest commentary on America IMO.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jan 29, 06:53:00 PM:
I don't know about the others, but Ann Coulter has always been more about the laughs than about the money. Or, to put it differently, she has found that being herself is very lucrative.
I knew her well in law school, and she was really the same person. She said outrageous things because she enjoyed the reaction she could provoke, but she was always willing to be friends with lefties who had a good sense of humor. Her television persona, which seems so ingenuine to so many people, is actually very genuine. I do not know whether that is more or less troubling than if it were not true.
By Chris, at
Wed Jan 30, 03:52:00 PM:
Yes, mike, that certainly is one way to read the above. The totally wrong way, of course.
