Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Oraculations: Liberals Hate Poor People

I would posit they hate anyone who isn't just like them and the circle of politically correct gets smaller as the days tick by:

Highly educated, huge-ass house, hybrid vehicle, single mother, "life partners", media pundit, in the arts, supports the arts, atheist, secular, Ayn Rand is god, urban, ex-urban, metrosexual, gay, bi or nattily attired straight, corporate babe or dude--but only at a Tech company out West, Sierra Club member, eat organic, vegan, and utterly convinced the world will stop rotating on its axis if G.W. mispronounces a word.


Howard says this:
The New Editor offers a link to the WaPo's George Will, who has written an essay about the Liberals and their campaign to destroy Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, and McDonald's. Never mind that these companies have a combined customer base of nearly three billion people per week, forget that they employ millions, and especially forget the management of those companies don't actually love labor unions---more accurately, they nearly hate the near corrupt labor union leaders---whom they view as more interested in electing Democrats than they are of representing their members.

My take on this Left Wing attack is this: Liberals actually despise people who live in cheap apartments, shop at the least expensive stores, and are forced to send their kids to public schools---created by liberals, thank you very much. They wouldn't shop with people who didn't go to college, wouldn't be caught dead eating cheap food at a McDonalds like a bunch of low wage bums, and especially don't want to associate with people who don't have, at the very least, a Masters Degree in something completely useless. They don't want to be in the same yacht basin with people who have jobs that either cause them to sweat from exertion or get varicose veins---enlarged, twisted, painful superficial veins found usually in women---from standing behind a counter or cash register all day.

These attacks on companies that serve the working "poor" and some middle class bargain shoppers must be destroyed for the greater good of their less than affluent customers. In other words: if you don't have a Mercedes just roll over and die.
Go visit Howard's blog. He has some good things to say.

6 comments:

David said...

Here's a thought experiment: suppose a store that was more aesthetically upscale than WMT (Target, let's say) used labor and sourcing practices identical to those of WMT. Would it be the target (the target!) of the same level of anger?

I doubt it...while some WMT critics are surely motivated by sincere concern about the workers, a lot of them are mainly concerned about the fact that the place is just so (in their view)TACKY.

For many "progressives," it seems that aesthetics has become a substitute for ethics.

Anonymous said...

Highly educated, huge-ass house, hybrid vehicle, single mother, "life partners", media pundit, in the arts, supports the arts, atheist, secular, Ayn Rand is god, urban, ex-urban, metrosexual, gay, bi or nattily attired straight, corporate babe or dude--but only at a Tech company out West, Sierra Club member, eat organic, vegan, and utterly convinced the world will stop rotating on its axis if G.W. mispronounces a word.

Doc, that's a longwinded way to say "Kyle's Mom".

As for "TACKY", yeah, I shop at Wal-Mart. When I want something cheap and serviceable (which is most of the time), I go to WalMart. When I want something "aesthetic", I go to a specialty shop or online or ask around my contacts. What is so terrible about both being there?

David said...

BTW, the string of attributes in Howard's post doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Is "in the arts" usually associated with "ayn rand is god?" Is "single mother" usually associated with "huge-ass house?"

Dr. Melissa said...

David,

That's just the point. Single motherhood by choice, was my meaning.

Anonymous,
I eat organic and shop at Wal-Mart. So why would progressives deride whole segments of the population who shop and work there?

It's the elitist attitude that is so repugnant. Surrounded by knobby headed people who won't darken the doors of such a plebian establishment except for the "tacky" and "serviceable", (oh and the cheap DVDs and cheap underwear that are the same as other stores but half the price, etc.)

It is so much fun to deride Wal-Mart, benefit from the cost pressure it has put on all retail establishments--even the "quality" and "aesthetic" ones. It makes one sound so urbane. And like a total snob.

By the way, Wal-Mart is the #1 retailer of diamonds in America. I think the snobs are just angry that the little people can dress like and adorn their homes in ways once reserved for the rich.

It's about time the little people learned their place.

Anonymous said...

On second thought, maybe "Sneering Seinfeld" is a better description than "Kyle's Mom"...

Anonymous said...

Actually if you think about it most wealthy liberals support their policies in order to stop the common folk from ever ascending to the ranks of the richest classes. Social Security is a regressive tax that takes 15% of the income of the first 70K one makes. Taxing the rich means taxing those with high incomes not high wealth. Capital gains, stock dividends, partnerships etc all have vehicles for delaying taxes and avoiding tax. Though not so much after Reagon reduced the tax rate to 28% and removed most of the egregious loopholes libs put in place so the upper class did not really have to pay their 70% rate. It is the liberal who is the wealthy monster who attacks the poor. By taxing income not wealth it makes it harder to become wealthy and easier to keep it.