House of Eratosthenes

Althouse can’t find anything wrong with it and neither can I. In fact, I have been wondering for a long time now: When our modern liberals talk up the importance of “building a strong middle class,” and steadfastly refuse to define such keystone terms within that phrase like “middle class,” “building,” “strong” and, I suppose, “a”; could this be the “middle class” to which they are referring?

We already know that when they’re talking about “working families” they’re not talking about families and they’re not talking about people who work. And we already know that they know their prospects in any election are related to how many among us are in the dependency class, and as a direct consequence of this incentive they’ve been working to increase the ranks of the dependency class.

I’m truly puzzled as to why it seems no one within their support structure is asking the question. Consider what the democrat politician is saying to his democrat followers when he says these democrat things:

– You are middle class;
– “The rich” either make more than you, or have more than you, or both;
– They are not paying their fair share (more terms that evade an actual definition);
– That is a problem I am going to fix;
– BUT — in my vision, you are to remain middle class;
– However I am going to make this middle class stronger.

What kinds of people absorb such a message without asking: Waitaminnit waitaminnit, does that mean my financial situation improves? Does my income go up? Do I get to keep more of it? Save more? Does it mean my kids can be rich someday?

As near as I can figure it, “strong” means one of two things, and perhaps both of these things: The class has more people in it, and when the class says “jump” the politicians in Washington say, “how high?” So the people who support this 1) are not asking what any of this means; 2) disagree with me (somehow) in what it means; or 3) are overly concerned with silly things that don’t matter, like when they’re in an economic class that limits their options in life, are their lots of other people in the same class and are the beltway politicians invested in keeping them in that limited economic class, and if it’s yes to both then all is good.

Sonic Charmer, I thought, did a decent job of trying to figure out what has their panties in a wad.

The other juicy point to gnaw on here is that the lefty journalist corps is now busily writing up their pieces for people to read tomorrow whose premise is going to be that when Romney asserted such and such number of people receive more than they pay from Daddy Government, he was insulting those people. But where’s the insult? one is tempted to ask innocently. So what if some people make use of popular progressive programs? Isn’t that good?

Anytime one gets ‘progressives’ to unanimously (if backhandedly) acknowledge there is shame involved in government assistance, right-minded people have got to consider it a win.

Could it really be that simple? These people live in a world in which the shame is not in the dependency itself, but rather in who else discusses it?

Ed Darrell is pretty upset about it, and shows it in his customary way, by defining “rational person” according to who does & doesn’t agree with him about things…the trend remains consistent, it is absolutely, completely kept secret what is to be so flawed and off-kilter in what Romney said. They’re awfully fond of the rib-elbowing, wink wink nudge nudge over on that side of the aisle. One is tempted to suppose they darn well know, if ever their ideas were to be discussed in any kind of technical detail it would be revealed how little sense they make.

Well, I’ll just state the obvious and let it go at that: Forty-seven is very close to fifty, and when close to half of the voters are, as it has been said, “signing the back of the check instead of the front” — that means close to half of the nation couldn’t possibly care less what the financial picture is as long as the gravy train keeps coming in. And that, boys and girls, does not make a nation stronger.

Now I’m going to go take a shower, because I feel like I need to when I say just completely self-evident stuff like this that shouldn’t need to be said.

Update: Ah yes, I had not thought of this. It’s difficult to put too much disciplined thought into what is being said, when those saying it refuse to say what it is they’re saying:

These “gaffes” (scare quotes necessary because the term has lost a definite meaning beyond “controversial statement that gets a politician off message”) rarely seem as devastating as partisan opponents hope (though don’t tell that to Todd Akin). During the 2008 cycle, Barack Obama was recorded, also at a fundraiser, saying that Democrats in western Pennsylvania were too bigoted and religiously deluded to consider voting for him. Complaints about that far more offensive “bitter clinger” stuff remain staples of conservative rhetoric. But there’s still no evidence I know of that it hurt him much at all. I suspect Romney’s statement will have even less of a shelf life.

Not sure of that last part of it. But it’s a good point to be made that, if the “clinging to guns and religion” remark was not terminal to a political career, perhaps it is then an exaggeration to speak with such ominous foreboding about the ultimate effect of the 47% statement.

I’m taking it as another incremental re-writing of the rules. Elections have to function in a certain way for progressives to have a chance of winning. You can’t have voter ID, you have to have Black Panthers strutting around the polling place with billy clubs in hand, fairy tales have to be told about women becoming gestation slaves if things go the wrong way, the panhandlers have to be given free smokes and free hooch for taking the trouble to go in, and the conservative politicians should not be allowed to talk about the swelling ranks of the dependency class.

Time to bring the graphic out again:

The latest, quoted approvingly around the water cooler at work today, was Randy Newman’s latest clever ditty, allegedly about Republican voters: “I’m Dreaming of a White President.”

It can’t be about foreign policy, or the economy, or the debt, or the constant, ever-growing State intrustion into ever-smaller personal decisions… not really. It can’t possibly be! Why, it must be about some imaginary melanin threshhold!

They were on about this Romney video, too. “He’s living on his own planet,” one lady sniffed. Personally, I think that planet is Earth, while my poor colleagues are in high orbit, having built a fantasy world that cannot endure. It’s already beginning to burn to cinders upon re-entry, scuttled by its own cargo and crew, but nobody’s willing to admit it’s time to fire off the escape pods. They will ride that mother down to impact, and take out a lot of people on the ground while they’re at it.

They may well protest that those folks on the ground are firing at them – how uncivil! How chilling! They refuse to realize that it’s necessary to destroy the flaming hulk they’re riding on… all they have to do is bail out and they will be in no danger.

I’ll stop there before my analogy crashes in similar fashion.
- nightfly | 09/18/2012 @ 08:15
Putting aside sniveling ladies proclaiming their knowledge around the ole water cooler, who obviously weren’t going to vote for Mitt anyways, I can envision this actually helping Romney.

For example, how many folks, less those of us on the interwebs daily, actually know the figure of 47% being on the dole? And forget the 47% who are, or at least the ones who want to be there, I’m referring to the folks going to work everyday who didn’t know that almost half the folks in this country don’t pay taxes and are happy to be a subject of the government and are only gonn’a vote for more of the same. Could be a wake up call for some “swing” voters I think.

At least to those “Independents” who haven’t decided yet and heard about Barry and Bill Ayers, Tony Resko, energy prices “necessarily going higher”, increasing taxes for fairness in spite of knowing it means less revenue…and continuing on with the unmitigated disaster of the last 4 years.

Some video where Mitt speaks the truth, not being angry, nor condescending, not calling anyone names, is supposed to derail his campaign?

Notice who is telling us this, those on the other side. Sure guys, gotcha.

Nothing more than this weeks episode of ‘Mitt is going to lose, see we told ya’, come on, don’t be a dolt, vote for Barry’. Last week it was hyperventilating about his response to the consulate attack, the week before that it was Mitt is out of touch, the week before that it was Ryan is gonn’a shove old ladies of the cliff…and on and on…(*yawn*).

And the economy still sucks, gas is OVER 4 dollars, unemployment still sucks, the Middle East is in flames, Iran is closer to wiping Israel off the map…

Nothing but desperation. It’s over.

See the 2010 election for a reality check.
- tim | 09/18/2012 @ 11:25
I’m with tim on this one.

I don’t think “Romney is a big ol’ meanie for telling the truth” is going to fly much longer. May have already jumped the shark, in fact. (And ain’t it funny that “speaking truth to power” and “being a fearless truth-teller in the face of the sheeple” are super-duper cool things to do when the fearless truth teller is a leftie and the “truth to power” is some leftist performance art claptrap? But I digress).

It’s jumping the shark, I think, because a time is coming very soon when we will have to be those big ol’ meanies. Us. Ourselves. Where we’ll have to say to neighbors and coworkers and friends and yes, family members, that it’s your refusal to face facts that got us into this mess, Sparky. I know you’ve voted Democrat since that nice Mr. Roosevelt, Grandma, but this ain’t the 1930s and paying farmers exorbitant subsidies not to grow stuff is even stupider now than it was 80 years ago. And you, Johnny –and this actually happened to me the other day, with a close friend — you know how you’ve just spent twenty minutes bitching about the ridiculous red tape down at the doctor’s office, only to have to go get a script for what used to be OTC? You think that’s gonna get better when the DMV and the Post Office are in charge of healthcare? And Sandra, I can barely pay my own bills, so when I’m home from work I’m too tired to muster up the energy to do whatever in the world it takes (and I really don’t want to know) to dump a fuck into a shrill, shrewish, 32-year-old professional student, so please, for the love of god, send Dakota the achingly progressive androgynous bicurious waif-boy down to the college clinic to pick up a rubber or seven before you get down to whatever it is you people do when you’re thumping uglies (and again, please Jesus, I don’t wanna know).

Enough with the “social justice.” Enough with “for the children.” And for God’s own sweet sake, enough with pretending it’s all about some mythical melanin threshold. If you, personally, can’t explain to my face why I, personally, should open my wallet and just hand you some cash, then it’s a shit policy and if you voted for it, YOU are the goddamn problem.

/rant.

Good on Mitt for bringing it up, I say.
- Severian | 09/19/2012 @ 07:48

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Forty-Seven PercentTuesday, September 18th, 2012

Forty-Seven Percent
Tuesday, September 18th, 2012