The Elite Honoring the Elite

Outsider reports

In the moments leading up to kickoff between the Buffalo Bills and Los Angeles Rams to open the 2022 NFL season, fans were treated to a rendition of “Lift Every Voice and Sing.”

Grammy-nominated artist Halle Bailey performed the song, also known as the “Black National Anthem.”

Some fans watching at home were left confused by the rendition, chiming in on Twitter with their thoughts. One user claimed the “Black National Anthem” only serves to divide the country.

There is no "claim" about it. If the purpose of the  "Black National Anthem" were to unite, rather than divide, the country, it would be called the "National Anthem."

Moreover

Another was wondering why fans in attendance treated the song as if it was the actual National Anthem.

A common theme in fans’ confusion was the timing of the song. It was played just moments before the league held a moment of silence to recognize the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, the United Kingdom’s longest-reigning monarch. The irony of it all stood out to one Twitter user.

It was one strange juxtaposition:

It's crazy that they did a rendition of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" right before a moment of silence for a British monarch...

— Connor Hope (@HoopsHopeCBB) September 9, 2022

A good tweet- but "irony" is doing a lot of work there, substituting for "rank hypocrisy."

Two+ years ago, we were hearing a lot about "white privilege" (if not previously, now a phrase certainly deserving to be enclosed in quote marks).  Last year, we still were hearing about "white privilege." Even earlier this year, there were sporadic complaints about white privilege, bestowed upon individuals because of the advantage of being born with white skin in this nation.

Alas, we have learned that the phrase was devoid of meaning, unless an effort to slam poor and working-class white Americans for the privileges they enjoy as they struggle to pay for food, health care, and education beyond the twelfth grade.  We have learned that a sizeable chunk of society, including MSNBC and CNN (and of course, Fox News), is delighted that a small group of individuals is to be treated royally if born of the right parents, regardless of what the individuals have accomplished on their own.

There was no moment of silence for four residents of Memphis, Tennessee, who became victims of a horrible shooting spree a day before the death, at age 96 after a long and fulfilling life, of a famous citizen of Great Britain.  The NFL displayed its priorities, especially with the bizarre recognition of the death of Queen Elizabeth II intertwined with a rendition of the "Black National Anthem."

The monarch died a few hours after a shooting rampage in Memphis, Tennessee which left four people died.  American media, not surprisingly, paid little attention to the murder of several citizens of its own nation, choosing instead to report seemingly endlessly on the death of the monarch. 

If there is such a thing as "white privilege," there is no more obvious and no better example of it than the British monarchy.  The fawning over the death of Queen Elizabeth II in the USA has been more than an ugly editorial judgement.  It has been the celebration, and encouragement, of an institution clearly antithetical to the principle, however imperfectly honored, that all people are created equal in a liberal democracy.

 

Share |

Fair, Balanced, And Inaccurate

I apologize in advance.

You're a busy man or woman. You shouldn't have to waste your time, even two minutes of it, reading, or thinking, about Van Jones.

But think of it instead as an observation of the state of the two major political parties- or rather, how they are perceived.   Twelve months ago, CNN pundit Van Jones stated on ABC's The View

Both political parties, I think,right now have a big problem and they don't want to discuss it. And if you discuss it you get in trouble. 

The liberals you just talked abut how liberals and Democrats, we see ourselves as champions of the poor and donstrodden.That's how we see outselves. But we somehow have let a little camp of elitist-sounding, snobby people camp of elitist-sounding, snobby people come into the Party and it's obnoxious and then talk down to people and everybody hates it. And if  you say as a Democrat "well, what are you talking about?" Bit evrybody knows we have a problem with elitism.





This was from the guy who a year earlier had endorsed for President one Hillary Clinton, who later suggested some American voters are "deplorable" and "irredeemable," over the decidely non-elitist Bernie Sanders.

Jones also had loyally served President Obama, who cut him loose under a little pressure. He still is a loyal follower of the former President, who as a candidate remarked that some voters "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Van Jones blasted the "elitists" of the Democratic Party, casually unaware that he had supported in 2008 and 2016 the two more patronizing of the Democratic candidates for President.

Nonetheless, Jones' lack of introspection is less significant than his naivete. Barack Obama, arguably the most patronizing Democrat of his generation, went on to win two terms as President despite being widely characterized by critics as "elitist." It was no bar to his success, nor is it likely to be for the perenially popular seven-term US Senator from Iowa, who we now learn has

defended his party's tax plan this weekend by saying that plans to reduce or eliminate the estate tax mean that people will use their money more wisely.

"I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley (R-Iowa) told the Des Moines Register, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

Unless he gets just plain tired of living in Washington, D.C., a thousand miles from his home state, Charles Grassley will be elected to his eighth term in the United States Senate on November 8, 2022.

Elitism is the least of the problems of the Democratic Party, which has gotten its rear end kicked on the local, state, and national levels by the far more elitist Party.

Chuck Grassley was only one of 51 GOP senators who voted for the tax bill which aids the elites of society, whether the individually wealthy or corporations, and shortchanges the poor and middle class. Even the short-term tax cuts for the middle class, which will turn into tax increases in the long term, is inherently elitist, as the Party counts on average Americans to forget who was doing it to them.

This is an ongoing problem as either members of the media or pundits representing the Democratic Party let the Republican Party off the hook as they seek to demonstrate their bipartisan bonafides by claiming that both parties are responsible for dysfunction in Washington.  Whatever the perception, there is only one elitist party in Washington, and it's run by Donald J. Trump and his sycophants on Capitol Hill.




Share |

Unforced Error



It has been over a week- a week!- since I last used my favorite word, "ironic."

It has been long enough, and so it was ironic that both Mitt Romney's most effective statement and biggest unforced error came in response to the worst question at Tuesday night's clash in Hempstead, NY.  

We shouldn't have been surprised.   Closing statements, a waste of valuable time, have become almost mandatory.   There were two-minute closing statements in this year's first presidential debate, hosted by Jim Lehrer, and a closing statement in the vice-presidential debate.

Last night, there was no closing statement- technically.   There was, in fact, a call by Candy Crowley for closing statements, though not acknowledged as such by the moderator.   Crowley chose the questions- and order of the questions- from among those submitted by allegedly undecided voters.   And the last one was nearly predictable.   "What do you believe," a guy named Barry Green asked, "is the biggest misperception "that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?"

When a politician hears a vague question about feelings or what people think of him or her, it looks like a big, fat fastball over the heart of the plate.    And when the questioner asks to be "set straight," that fastball is coming over at about 80-85 miles per hour.  (Sports analogies are so tedious, aren't they?)   It is a request for a closing statement by any other name.

In part, Romney didn't disappoint, claiming, in the manner of a closing argument to a campaign

I understand that I can get this country on track again. We don’t have to settle for what we’re going through. We don’t have to settle for gasoline at four bucks. We don’t have to settle for unemployment at a chronically high level. We don’t have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don’t have to settle for 50 percent of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don’t have to settle for 23 million people struggling to find a good job.

Sure, a President has virtually no effect on the price of gasoline in the short-term (which was the issue in play here); unemployment is coming down and is .4% higher than when incumbent President Ronald Reagan ran on the highly successful "Morning in America" theme; food stamp rolls are very high because of the economic slump Barack Obama inherited and liberalization of eligibility rules enacted under President Bush; and Romney wants to raise the eligibility age for both Medicare and Social Security, which would deter elderly people from retiring, hence foreclosing those positions from young people looking for a job.

Still, those comments from the challenger would have been effective- had they not been overshadowed, justifiably, by a comment Romney made earlier in the same response:  "I care about 100 percent of the American people. I want 100 percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future. "

Uh, no.  No, he doesn't.   Mitt Romney does not care about 100 percent of the American people, nor does he particularly want 100 percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future.   He hardly is rooting for individuals "who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."  He believes "they will vote for the president no matter what" and that he will "never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Let's go over it:  in the formulation of the ex-governor, 47% of Americans are crybabies, leach off the (federal income tax) taxpayers, and will vote for his opponent, anyway.   But he cares about them and wants them "to have a bright and prosperous future."

Resisting the temptation explicitly to accuse his opponent of "chutzpah," Barack Obama nevertheless pounced, asserting, in part

I believe Governor Romney is a good man. Loves his family, cares about his faith. But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about

Folks on Social Security who’ve worked all their lives. Veterans who’ve sacrificed for this country. Students who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams. Soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now. People who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don’t make enough income.

And I want to fight for them. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last four years. Because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds.

By bringing up "100%," Romney obviously laid the predicate for Obama's remark.   The President ought to spend the remaining three weeks of the campaign reminding voters that his opponent dismisses both soldiers and the elderly, and is targeting the latter with his plans for Medicare and Social Security (not primarily individuals already elderly, but it is a status almost all of us aspire to).  In his response to an audience member who wanted him to "debunk" a "misperception" and "set us straight," Romney could have helped Obama more only if he had quipped "Barry, I didn't realize you needed to be set straight."



Share |

Two Peas In An Elitist Pod


The United States of America may not survive. Campaigning in June against the (unsuccessful) effort to recall Governor Scott Walker, Representative Paul Ryan exclaimed "On Tuesday, we save Wisconsin.   On November 6th, Wisconsin saves America."

But Ann Romney, who believes "no one will move heaven and earth" (to help the country) more than her husband, knows that salvation lies not in party, but in man.    In a radio interview in March, she remarked of her husband "he's the only one who can save America."

This proved to be no gaffe, no slip of the tongue when in August she explained to Natalie Morales of Rock Center with Brian Williams

We have a reason why we're running and it's because I believe in my heart that Mitt is going to save America. That economically we are in such difficult times and that he is the person that's gonna pull us through this. And it's propelled me through the negative criticism. And I am stalwart and steadfast and positive and confident that still to this day Mitt is the person who's going to save America and he's gonna get us back on track.

August would have been reported as a bad month for Mrs. Romney, if the media had cared to pay attention.     Ann, ever the compassionate and caring soul, first told a Latino Coalition luncheon on August 29 “I spoke to women last night and I wanted women to understand how important this election is for their children."   Then it got a little ugly as she warned

You’d better really look at your future and figure out who’s going to be the guy that’s going to make it better for you and your children, and there is only one answer... It really is a message that would resonate well if they could just get past some of their biases that have been there from the Democratic machines that have made us look like we don’t care about this community.

You better do it, if you know what's good for you, the would-be Queen First Lady told a group of people she fears just cannot get past its prejudice.

It shouldn't be any surprise that her husband would express a similar disdain for Americans when he commented at the home of a fund-raiser in May

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

No compassionate conservatism, there.  The candidate does not pretend that students, the elderly, or people down on their luck ought to vote for Republicans (though sadly, many do). Notwithstanding the candor expressed in a room of fellow multi-millionaires to fellow multi-millionaires, Mitt Romney has a lot in common with his wife.   They are people who really, really are not fond of people who are unlike them.   As then- New Jersey Republican Governor Tom Kean would have put it, "Mitt and Ann- Perfect Together."



Share |

Who He Is

You may have not thought it possible. Maybe you would have thought anyone experienced in communicating with the public would have the common sense, if not to believe it, at least to acknowledge that our nation needs more and better: a) engineers, to help bring about critical technological improvement, in development and application of alternative energy sources and otherwise; b)scientists, to find cures for diseases which contribute to life expectancy in the U.S.A., which lags behind that in approximately 30 countries; c)doctors, to apply those cures to patients, to have more time to counsel and comfort ill and healthy patients, and to have the knowledge and patience to apply principles of prevention to prevent disease; and teachers, to encourage students in pursuit of those critical careers, and to provide a sufficient pool of educators to stock schools in poor, underserved towns and cities across the nation so that even these children have a chance in society.

So what does Rush Limbaugh, supporter of taxpayer-paid bonuses for AIG executives, believe- and is brazen enough to admit he believes- is an occupation we should steer young people into? Check this out- extraordinary even for the standards of the de facto Republican party chairman:

OBAMA: We need young people instead of the, you know, a smart kid coming out of school, instead of wanting to be an investment banker, we need them to decide they want to be an engineer, want to be a scientist, they want to be a doctor or a teacher, and if we're rewarding those kinds of things that actually contribute to making things and -- and making people's lives better, that's going to put our economy on solid footing, we won't have this bubble and bust economy that we've gotten so caught up in for the last several years.

RUSH: Now, this is part of his existence. His wife said the same thing in Zanesville, Ohio, back during the campaign: Don't be a lawyer, don't be an investment banker, stay as a nurse or what have you. So here is the president of the United States on The Tonight Show, which, you know, the audience of that show, what would you want to guess the average IQ of the audience of The Tonight Show is? "Don't be an investment banker," do not do that, you will destroy America. It's none of his damn business what you want to do with your life! It's none of his business! Unless he's paying your education, unless he's your father, and even then, it's your life, and you can do with it what you want. Of all the occupations, "Don't be an investment banker." Why? Who's he targeting?

You read that right- an investment banker! What this nation needs is not more engineers, scientists, doctors, or teachers, but investment bankers!

Now, it's fine to be an investment banker or to take up any legal vocation or occupation. President Obama is not blocking admission to the field of investment banking, even though there is no dearth of investment bankers in the United States. Nor was the prevailing economic catastrophe caused by a lack of financial wizards, for whom personal assets in the millions were insufficient, and who belong to a field with individuals willing to gamble with the money of their fellow Americans (whom they clearly never thought of in that context) to assume even more capital and power.

It's a reminder that Limbaugh, back when cellular phones were generally limited to the wealthy and drug pushers, would proudly ask his engineer to push calls from people with cell phones to the top of the list because they were likely wealthy Republicans (though now that we know of Rush's fondness for Oxycontin, maybe it was the other group he was favoring). And it's more evidence to us, that beyond those items which characterize many radio talk-show hosts- the right-wing politics, extreme partisanship, and and deft ability to avoid detail or facts- what Rush Limbaugh is all about is elitism.

Of Elitism

elitism:

-belief in concept of superiority: the belief that some people or things are inherently superior to others and deserve preeminence, preferential treatment, or higher rewards because of their superiority (encarta.msn.com)

-the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals (webster's- online-dictionary.org)

-the belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources (freedictionary.com)

Since the remarks Barack Obama made on April 6, 2008 to a group of wealthy donors in San Francisco became public, he was skewered for an allegedly "elitist" attitude. Patronizing they were, as I wrote and believe, but "elitist" they are not. The comments did not suggest that Obama believes that those a society deems superior should dominate a government or be favored in any manner. That view would charcterize the Republican Party, whose leaders tend to believe that the wealthy and well-connected should dominate all facets of American government, if not the world.

This came to mind as we await Senator Obama's response today to comments made by President Bush, and obviously welcomed by Senator McCain, yesterday in Israel, implying that that Mr. Obama's policy toward the Middle East/Persian Gulf amounted to "appeasement" akin to that of Chamberlain at Munich. Bush stated:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

This politically incendiary charge was indirect, never mentioning Obama or even the Democratic Party, and therefore could have been ignored by the apparent nominee-to-be. But they are not being ignored, because Barack Obama apparently believes that the American people can figure out that he was being targeted and that they will respond to a sensible argument against a false analogy meant not to enlighten, and not largely to persuade, but primarily to scare, the electorate. An elitist certainly would not dive into this debate, one perpetrated by patronizing politicians of the right who believe the American people cannot recall history accurately, and do not care to.

Rush Limbaugh On: The American Voter

It's like shooting ducks in a barrel. Listen to Rush Limbaugh, hear idiocy. Today, Rush was breathlessly hyping his "Operation Chaos" in the Democratic nominating process. Limbaugh began talking to a self-described, proud "dittohead" and the conversation eventually deteriorated thusly:

CALLER: I just wanted to point out the ironies of the fact that the South is always being knocked as the region that will not vote for a black man. Yet, what is the only region where Democrats did not vote for a black man?

RUSH: Yeah, the elite, refined, sophisticated Northeast.

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: So your point, that's where the true racism resides?

CALLER: Oh, it's obvious, isn't it?

RUSH: I don't think there's any question.

Yes, that's the premier voice of Repub talk radio asserting that anyone who does not vote for a black man is a racist. Millions of individuals choosing to vote for United States Senator Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president, and they're all racist. That would make Rush Limbaugh simplistic and narrow-minded, but perhaps most of all.... elitist.