what up cg. i'm pretty good, been real busy with work and the garden and whatnot but looking forward to some vacation next week. how about your own self?
i'll admit i haven't read too much of lemos's stuff . . . and that's because what i have read irritated me so thoroughly i didn't feel the need to seek out more. he wrote a diary a while back that i found incredibly polemical and intellectually dishonest in a david sirota kind of way. but maybe i was just being cranky.
Santelli's a tool, sure. His farcical Chicago Tea Party may have the wingosphere in a twitter but really who cares.
The only racist shit I see here is against "white ethnics." This diary baldly asserts that "the white ethnics" as a monolithic group are racist against black Americans and basically pretty bad people. The only tenuous connection from Santelli's rant to race is that CNBC ran a promo for its new series beforehand? Seriously? That's it? Nothing he, you know, said or implied? Well I guess he implied that he's racist in the same way he implied that he's anti-Semitic and homophobic and whatever else we want to paint the people we don't like as.
I mean, I just re-read this paragraph slowly
The white ethnic groups, who did not feel that they were to blame for American racism and thus not responsible for any corrective measures, grew resentful in the face of 1960s Great Society programs they saw as unfair handouts to African Americans, and thus began the "white ethnic backlash" of the 1970s. Theirs is the politics of the individual uber alles. Society can go to the toilet for all they care. I'm not quite sure where that would end if allowed to go to its full conclusion. Today, the white ethnics still oppose any redistributive programs or even rescue plans as some "unfair" handout. Never mind that the conditions that create this toxic economy have been an unrelenting class war on the poor, to Mr Santelli redistributive policies only go from the bottom up, never the inverse. You cannot reason with these people you can only hope to make them irrelevant.
and all I saw was a whole lot of generalized nastiness ascribed, without distinction or particularity, to a vast body of people on the basis of their race.
I've been away from the D for a while but if this is what's passing for front-page "commentary" these days then God fucking help us.
I'm no fan of those who call themselves PUMAs, but I agree that it was a little weird to see them come up in the comments to this diary. (And I know I referenced the legendary Texas Darlin above, but a quick glance at this comment thread will show s/he and her crew are not so much Obama-doubting Clintonites as a deeply cynical fantasists.)
I mean, duder's being a dick to "Old Rodham Clinton" too, it's not like "bitterethnics" or "MumbaiBurns" or "moscow" or rankles or whoever is even pretending to be a Democrat.
I thinn pneuma's point is that, whatever the factual merits of Carl's and MainStreet's argument, the way they argue it comes off as bad-faith propaganda. That doesn't mean it's not true, or more likely at least partially true, just that it doesn't convince anybody.