bret stephens -- wanton, willful cluelessness on the wsj editorial page this morning. . .

this has more to do with
cleaning up the cheney-mess (i.e.,
the next president) than the sort
of stuff i usually cover, here,
but i could not let bret stephens'
latest excrement-flinging on the opinion
page of the wall street journal
just pass into the mists of this
morning. . . i'll set his in red,
then, paragraph by paragraph, my
thoughts, below. . .

Great (American) Expectations
Barack Obama shows why
foreigners consider us naive.

By Bret Stephens
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
12:01 a.m. EST

Barack Obama, still fresh from his victory
in Iowa last week and confident of another
in New Hampshire tonight, has as his
signature campaign theme the promise to
"end the division" in America. Notice the
irony: The scale of his Iowa victory,
in a state that's 94% white, is perhaps
the clearest indication so far that the
division Mr. Obama promises to end has
largely been put to rest. . .

i guess mr. stephens missed the fact that
senator obama runs a multi-faceted campaign,
one not defined SOLELY by the color of his skin.

senator obama is -- by all accounts in the
reality-based community -- not so much speaking
about race as the key "divider", as he is other
dynamics -- class, education, access, influence and
religious differences -- besides simple skin-color.
but it is plain from his following remarks, that
mr. stephens sees only race when he looks at obama.
note the soft racism of low expectations in
all of mr. stephens' remarks about barack obama. . .

note also how, by dint of his magic
white-ness wand, he is empowered to
simply -- poof! -- declare racism
no longer a problem. no, really.
some of his "best friends are. . . um. . ."

never-mind.

now, more bret:

. . .When foreigners assail Americans for
being naive, it is often on account of
contrasts like these. A nation in which
the poor are defined by an income level
that in most countries would make them
prosperous is a nation that has all but
forgotten the true meaning of poverty. . .

whoah! -- hold on' pard'. i think
he just busted himself. he must live
so high in the ivory tower, that
he cannot see the little people, down
here, on the ground. bret would have
us believe that our poor are actually. . .
um, rich -- no, really! -- if we
(they) would just take our (their) poverty-
level-incomes back to the developing
world, to spend it all. . . [but then, be
sure to "beat feet" right back here, in the
early-morning, to drive his cabs, wash his
clothes and bus his tables and groom his
shr-ubber-ies. . . he he!] sheesh! to suggest
that someone is not really poor, with-
out making at least a passing-reference
to the differential costs of living in
the developed v. developing world,
is a sine qua non of willful, wanton excrement-
flinging. quite simian-like, in fact.
but that is, perhaps, also unfair. . .
to the various species of simians in-
habiting our cool green planet.

back to bret:

A nation [ours] in which obesity is largely a
problem of the poor (and anorexia of the
upper-middle class) does not understand
the word "hunger". . .

no bret, you don't. don't falsely-ascribe
your entitlement mind-set to the rest of us.

just as bret sees obama as a one-
note charlie (race), so too, does
he see poverty, and obesity, as
simply the product of "bad choices"
by poor, fat americans. but of course.
it is all so simple.

let's send someone up to his ivory
tower, and see if he might provide
us with all the answers to solving
our bad "choices".

be sure to send them up there with
at least two stone tablets, so he
has plenty of room to fit 'em in on. . .

okay. village idiot alert, high-income
category, this time. . .

p e a c e