Here's to you .... that unrepresented, descriminated-against minority: the angry, white, middle-aged male. Your heroes are Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. You are angry and you don't even know why. As Thomas Frank describes it in What's the Matter with Kansas:
"Everything seems to piss conservatives off. And they react by documenting and cataloging their disgust. The result is what we will call the plen-T-plaint, a curious amassing of petty, unrelated beefs with the world. Its purpose is not really to evaluate the hated liberal culture that surrounds us; the plen-T-plaint is a horizontal rather than vertical mode of criticism, aiming instead to infuriate us with dozens, hundreds, thousands of stories of the many tiny ways the world around us assaults family values, uses obscenities, disrespects parents[...] It offers no resolution, simply reminding us that we can never win. The plen-T-plaint is the rhetorical device that makes Bill O'Reilly's TV show a hit, as he gets indignant one day about the Insane Clown Posse and gets indignant the next about the Man-Boy Love Association [NAMBLA]."
Your flushed red face and spittle are palpable even on talk radio. I have to wipe my down my radio after you are done. You are unhappy with what you've done with your life and you are going to take it out on everyone else.
You feel you have a God-given right to the 350 years of white supremacy and unearned privilege. Just because you screwed up what you were given doesn't matter. You rail against affirmative action yet you have no problem with our president (who couldn't get into college in Texas) being let into Yale because of his daddy.
Well, I will tell you what. Angry, white, middle-age male ... you don't represent me, and you don't represent my friend, the Great White Bear.
==============================================================
Speaking of Bill O'Reilly, he was the guest on the Daily Show yesterday. And as usual, Stewart killed!!! I have no idea why O'Reilly even agreed to be on the show. While being courteous and funny, Stewart still managed to allow Bill to look like an out-of-touch idiot:
Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart
==============================================================
You want to know why we're screwing up in Iraq? Here's a pretty good analysis, and it's not from some left-wing site. It's from the American Conservative:
Billions of dollars have disappeared, gone to bribe Iraqis and line contractors’ pockets.
Some of the highlights:
- at least $20 billion of the Iraqi people's money and hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer money have been wasted
- young, unqualified Heritage Foundation neo-cons were given high ranking jobs and payed 6 figure salaries
- 363 tons of hundred dollar bills were distributed to contractors and middlemen with virtually no accountability
When the final accounting of the corruption in Iraq comes out, hopefully Americans will take to task those responsible.
15 comments:
That is the BEST OReilly picture. That about sums him up for me:
"Whaaaaaaaa, I'm an upper-class, white male - I'm sooooo oppressed by our society. I'm tired of all these 'minorities' getting handounts, whaaaaaa"
They're not handouts buddy, they're trying to level the playing ground of unearned, automatic privileges that upper-class, heterosexual, white males have in this country.
In OReilly's own words:
SHUT UP! JUST SHUT UP!
Wow, considering all the angry rants that go on by the author of this blog about just about anything Conservative. It's funny how many of these same complaints could be brought right back to the democratic liberals with little more than changing names and issues.
You fascinate me. Why do you come to this blog? I'm not trying to paint myself as anything that I'm not. I'm a progressive and have no problem admitting that. I do not like the direction in which our government is going. And this is not a "conservative" government. They have spent more than any administration before them. They are imperialistic. They have increased the size of government. That doesn't sound like conservatism to me. I think you like to pride yourself on being a conservative. So, that makes me wonder why you continue to support this administration.
If you have some concerns about liberalism and Democrats, I invite you to write something on your blog. I take the time to point out hypocrisy and corruption. As you say, "It's funny how many of these same complaints could be brought right back to the democratic liberals with little more than changing names and issues." Well, by all means, please enlighten us with these "names and issues".
You don't understand how i could be argumentative or have problems with your post?
You make criticims of the "angry white male" when it is obvious that you are so yourself.
The quote you use is a direct criticism of conservatives, speaking about how everything seems to piss conservatives off etc. when all you have to do is say the word homosexuality and the democrats and liberals are in an uproar. How about conservation? I could go on. Yet somehow this is a conservative problem.
You say I take the time to point out hypocrisy and corruption. Yet when i point out how your posts are being hypocritical you take offense at that.
As for why i come here. I come here because i enjoy a good discussion and like to hear what people who i don't necessarily agree with have to say. It keeps me on my toes and intellectually stimulated, something that has been very lacking in my present position.
I love this O'Reilly pix too. I makes him look like the big baby that he really is.
I saw him on The Daily Show too and loved Stewart pick him apart. I thought O'Reilly looked like a horses ASS as usual.
What a freak show. He's coming apart at the seams. He's a walking disaster.
JC:
Sure, both sides have "angry white men" but for conservatives that is their base. Their bread and butter:
O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush, John Gibson from FOX, Ann Coulter (who is a wannabe angry man, Fred Barnes, Michael Savage, Charles Krauthammer, and on and on...
JC,
Conservation and homosexuality upset liberals? Am I missing something?
There is nothing wrong with being angry. There are many wrongs in society that people (on both sides) are justifiably upset at. My post is specifically talking about ranting just for the sake of ranting (or to incite). Mr. O'Reilly will elevate an issue that has nothing to do with any of our normal lives (like the examples listed in Mr. Frank's quote) instead of bringing up stuff that does affect us like poverty, the environment, etc.
And I do expect (and welcome) arguments from other posters. That's why I invited you to defend this administration's version of conservatism. I don't believe you can. True conservatives are abandoning the President. What this is is closer to fascism than conservatism. The link to the post about Michael Ledeen is a great starting point for understanding what they are really trying to do.
James,
I just read somewhere (I can't remember where) but some serious conservatives are starting to criticize Coulter. That's pretty bad when you even sicken your own base. :-)
There are many wrongs in society that people (on both sides) are justifiably upset at. My post is specifically talking about ranting just for the sake of ranting
So it's alright to be angry and/or rant if it is an issue that you or those that think like you agree with. If it's not an issue you personally or those that think like you agree that should be ranted about, it's not ok.
JC,
Well, if you consider NAMBLA and Insane Clown Posse as more important issues than Darfur or health care, I guess you're right.
Using fringe issues to rile up the base is not exactly elevating the discussion.
Funny, but you attempted to do that with "Larry the Cable Guy" and he has had a whole lot less of a social impact than the Insane Clown Posse
I also found it amusing that you criticize people for being angry and expressing a passion right after you post criticising how people tend to be apathetic.
So what do you want, apathy or passion? It sounds an awful lot like you want people to be passionate about what is important to you, but if they are passionate about something other than what you are interested in than you are critical of them.
First of all, the issue was not Larry the Cable Guy. It was public funding of the arts. But, I concede that, to make a point, I was using hyperbole by bringing up Larry the Cable Guy. I just don't feel the O'Reilly is using these fringe elements to make a larger point.
Secondly, being passionate for something you believe in is fine. It doesn't have to be important to me, as long as it is important to you. But you cannot convince me that O'Reilly (or anyone else) honestly believes that the biggest problem in the world is NAMBLA. They complain merely to rile.
I think you would be surprised at what really makes some people passionate.
Beyond that i would have to concede the point. I don't know as that he's trying to rile people up as much as get them thinking, but you could still be right.
Post a Comment