bitterlyclingin
Silver Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 3,122
- 425
- 98
[Maybe it's because they wear the Magic 'D' after their name, thinking that makes them direct heirs in the lineage of FDR and JFK and above reproach, like brother Teddy displaying his stamina and prodigious appetite during his all night rental of the Mexican bordello]
"From Eliot Spitzer to Elizabeth Warren to Fareed Zakaria what is wrong with our elites? Do they assume that because they are on record for the proverbial people, or because they have been branded with an Ivy League degree, or because they are habitués of the centers of power between New York and Washington, or because they write for the old (but now money-losing) blue-chip brands (Time magazine, the New York Times, etc.), or because we see them on public and cable TV, or because they rule us from the highest echelons of government that they are exempt from the sorts of common ethical constraints that the rest of us must adhere to at least if a society as sophisticated as ours is to work?
I understand that there is a special genre of conservative Christian hypocrites a Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, or Ted Haggard who preach fire and brimstone about the very sins they indulge in. The Republican primary was in some ways a circus as the media had a field day pointing out the ethical inconsistencies of the candidates. But here I am talking about secular elites across the cultural spectrum who simply do not live by their own rules, and yet are often granted exemption for their transgressions because of their own liberal piety and a more calibrated assumption that the world of blue America (i.e., the media, the government, the arts, the foundations, the legal profession, and Hollywood) will not hold them to account.
Take affirmative action. Over-the-top and crude Ward Churchill at least bought the buckskin and beads to play out his con as an American Indian activist with various other associated academic frauds. But Elizabeth Warrens Cherokee-constructed pedigree was far more subtle and the sort of lie that Harvard could handle. She more wisely kept to the fast lane of tasteful liberal one-percenters, as she parlayed a false claim of Indian ancestry into a Harvard professorship. So whereas Churchill is now a much-lampooned figure, Warren may be headed to the U.S. Senate. To say that Elizabeth Warren is and was untruthful, and yet was a law professor who was supposed to inculcate respect for our jurisprudence, is to incur the charge of being a right-wing bigot. But reflect: how can someone who faked an entire identity and one aimed at providing an edge in hiring to the disadvantage of others not be completely ostracized? Again, Warren was successful precisely because she wore no beads or headband and did not affect a tribal name the sort of hocus-pocus that makes faculty lounge liberals uncomfortable. It was precisely because she looked exactly like a blond, pink Harvard progressive that Warrens constructed minority fraud was so effective."
Works and Days » Our Not So Best and Not So Brightest
"From Eliot Spitzer to Elizabeth Warren to Fareed Zakaria what is wrong with our elites? Do they assume that because they are on record for the proverbial people, or because they have been branded with an Ivy League degree, or because they are habitués of the centers of power between New York and Washington, or because they write for the old (but now money-losing) blue-chip brands (Time magazine, the New York Times, etc.), or because we see them on public and cable TV, or because they rule us from the highest echelons of government that they are exempt from the sorts of common ethical constraints that the rest of us must adhere to at least if a society as sophisticated as ours is to work?
I understand that there is a special genre of conservative Christian hypocrites a Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, or Ted Haggard who preach fire and brimstone about the very sins they indulge in. The Republican primary was in some ways a circus as the media had a field day pointing out the ethical inconsistencies of the candidates. But here I am talking about secular elites across the cultural spectrum who simply do not live by their own rules, and yet are often granted exemption for their transgressions because of their own liberal piety and a more calibrated assumption that the world of blue America (i.e., the media, the government, the arts, the foundations, the legal profession, and Hollywood) will not hold them to account.
Take affirmative action. Over-the-top and crude Ward Churchill at least bought the buckskin and beads to play out his con as an American Indian activist with various other associated academic frauds. But Elizabeth Warrens Cherokee-constructed pedigree was far more subtle and the sort of lie that Harvard could handle. She more wisely kept to the fast lane of tasteful liberal one-percenters, as she parlayed a false claim of Indian ancestry into a Harvard professorship. So whereas Churchill is now a much-lampooned figure, Warren may be headed to the U.S. Senate. To say that Elizabeth Warren is and was untruthful, and yet was a law professor who was supposed to inculcate respect for our jurisprudence, is to incur the charge of being a right-wing bigot. But reflect: how can someone who faked an entire identity and one aimed at providing an edge in hiring to the disadvantage of others not be completely ostracized? Again, Warren was successful precisely because she wore no beads or headband and did not affect a tribal name the sort of hocus-pocus that makes faculty lounge liberals uncomfortable. It was precisely because she looked exactly like a blond, pink Harvard progressive that Warrens constructed minority fraud was so effective."
Works and Days » Our Not So Best and Not So Brightest
