[M]ore and more, there's a brutish flaunting of wealth and leisure. Yesterday there were lots of pictures posted of smiling families at the beach and of people showing off their cars and vans. A picture from Italy shows a white sports car and comes with the caption: "Afraid? Why should we be afraid?"
A few days ago, We're Not Afraid might have been a comfort. Today, there's a hint of "What, me worry?" from Mad magazine days, but without the humor or the sarcasm. We're Not Afraid, set up to show solidarity with London, seems to be turning into a place where the haves of the world can show that they're not afraid of the have-nots.
Justified?
That "What, me worry?" crack resonants a little too much with the recent Hillary hoo-hah.
And, jeez, it almost seems to be implying that this is the answer to the question "Why do they hate us?"
Posts
55 comments:
I read that article this morning too and my reaction was something along the lines of, "F*&% you, Sarah Boxer."
Yeah, I bet those people were trying to show off their minivan. And heaven forbid there be any humor--if we are truly not afraid we'll all stare at the cameras in grave seriousness.
Absurd article.
They're upset that people aren't tilting their head and solemnly holding a sign saying, "I'm sorry you had to kill people in London because of George Bush - I hate him too."
"a brutish flaunting of wealth and leisure" - gotta' luv it!
"brutish flaunting" ????
Sarah Boxer's an asshole.
There can never be too many "New York Times" reporters in jail. Judith Miller represents nothing more than a good start.
DirtCrashr: They're upset that people aren't tilting their head and solemnly holding a sign saying, "I'm sorry you had to kill people in London because of George Bush - I hate him too."
Perfect! Wish I'd said that.
From the NYTimes, the home of self-loathing wankers, the definition of "brutish" is not blowing up innocents in a subway, but saying "Not Afraid" when standing by your car.
"I do not think that word means what you think it means."
Exactly Pogo,
I wonder if Miss Boxer has ever used "brutish" to describe our enemy? But she's a perfect example of the war we're waging here with our own left wing -- especially in the media.
We can only lose this war at home and The Left has their successful Losing The Vietnam War Playbook opened, dog eared, and well-thumbed.
As an example of brutish flaunting of wealth and leisure she cites "smiling families at the beach." How could she better reveal her contempt for America, mom, and apple pie than by sneering at a smiling family on vacation?
I'm sorry Ploop, when I talk about leftists I mean elected ones in politics, self-annointed ones in the liberal media, and the so-called spokespeople in academia, civil rights, etc...
Not the run of the mill Dems like you who are uneasy with stuff like this.
Hey, I was a Democrat once. And to make it up to you, I'd be more than happy to be your mentor in the "12 Step Liberal Recovery Program." *joke*
"Brutish flaunting of wealth"? Has this writer ever looked at the ads in the New York Times Magazine?
Clearly there are oafish displays of wealth and leisure too, which do warrant derision. I saw this guy the other day in a Hummer sporting a nasty sunburn, wearing an ill-fitting cowboy hat with 3 brats in the back their faces covered with some type of candy goo.
Sam: LOLOL.Congratulations for passing your seventh grade English class where you learned what irony is. You must be so proud.
London is bombed by terrorists, there are over 50 deaths of innocent civilians and this is what she chooses to write about.
I can just see her sitting at her desk, chomping at the bit for material to come by so she can wax poetic on the evils of Western affluence. As opposed to third-world poverty.
I wonder how much of her salary she donates to charity?
The interesting thing is, even if there are a few frivolous photos out of the thousands, the "have-nots" are not those who don't have wealth, but are those jihadist terrorists and those who approve of their actions. In that context, the "haves" are everyone else in the world, even Sarah Boxer, although she doesn't realize it and might be upset if she knew.
So this Boxer person has TWO residences?
Isn't that FLAUNTING wealth? it sort of is to me, and in the light of her wierd reaction, pretty frickin hypocritical.
"Oh, I live in both Manhattan AND Cambridge. It's wonderful, dahling. Kisses."
Imagine thinking that ordinary people showing pictures of their ordinary lives are engaged in brutish flaunting? That is a perfect expression of the culture of envy that marks our terrorist enemy. Send her to Gitmo!
Yea! Though I be wealthy and smart
verily I signify to shoppers at Wal-Mart
that our victuals are mutual, of common cart
I enter'th my Lexus and blow'th them a fart
-LDM
Clearly all of the poverty stricken "have-nots" are sitting at computers right now, cruising the Internet on broadband, and staring incredulously at pictures of people's minivans and the beach.
If we were a sensitive people, we would have dressed in sackcloth before taking such pictures. And we wouldn't have taken such pictures anyway because that implies that we own cameras. We would have drawn the pictures on packing cardboard with coal and sent them. . . no no, we wouldn't have created these pictures at all because it might make some poor bomber (AKA victim of American imperialism) feel badly about himself because we're not afraid of him.
Bah.
Dirtcrashr is right on the money.
I think this is just one more example of a desperate press. Why exactly is this website a blip to be commented on in the big scheme of things?
A confindent press would leave well enough alone, or rather realize that this is not exactly worth the ink...Journalists, reporters, "news media" have enjoyed decades of hero status... uhmm "flunting their important, brave profession"...silliness like this tells me they are coming to realise they are on the verge of drawing a paycheck for no particular preistege or merit.
Looking through all those pictures...I don't know exactly how a photo of a Londoner with stitches in his head (and a caption saying he survived the tube bombings) is a "brutish flaunting of wealth and lesuire". And that one pick of the black cat? And the cute chilean family with the little girl sitcking up her middle finger.
Sure, real brutish display of wealth there...the little girl has a finger!
You suck Sarah Boxer!
LDM: Have I ever mentioned that I hate you?
What would it take to start a "We are not reading the New York Times" weblog?
Maybe we should call it "No Times like the present."
Comrades- Is this not De Ca Dence? The running dog lackeys of the imperialist pigs cannot even take their boot off the throats of the working classes for one moment at the beach. And I fear it is not not even a baltic beach, comrades. We must fight the hegemony! We must overthrow the kulak counterrevolution and attack it with our dialectic truth. They must be taken from their bourgeosie beaches to the camps of improvement! Soon I will not be able to get a good table at Elaine's, if the Imperialists and useless eaters continue their rampage.
Wow, this stuff writes itself. I wonder if the Times is hiring?
Don't forget that Sarah Boxer is the same hack who wrote the irresponsible, sloppy, lazy, inaccurate, incomplete, exploitive, biased, and -- worst of all -- dangerous piece suggesting that the pro-democracy bloggers from Iraq the Model might be FBI plants.
Just want to point out that our enemy in the GWOT are not the have-nots. Have-nots do not lease homes in Florida while plunking down cash to learn how to fly planes. Have-nots do not offer cash bonuses to the families of suicide bombers. Have-nots do not spend months or years living in the west for the opportunity to place a bag of explosives on a train.
Sam-
why is this not surprising? the press is so predictable these days.
There is a prohibition against imagery in Islam where realistic pictures and imagery represents idolatry, specifically pictorial representation of human and animal figures. In Mosques the only sort of imagery allowed is iconic text, big elegant flourishes of Farsi. That prohibition is one reason why the Taliban blew-up the giant, ancient Buddhist statues - and these people are using IMAGES to defy the terrorists! Maybe that's what Sarah's all-up about, her Art-History degree is threatened, and Bush who doesn't care is making things worse.
Since no one has said this yet in so many words, I have to ask: is no one else simply jaw-dropped that a newspaper (or anyone, for that matter) attacked a London-solidarity site? Hello? Say what? [insert other expressions of astonishment as needed]
What's next - an article trouncing Emily's "Britain Fuck Yeah" comments page as unbearably vulgar and triumphalist?
sorryeverybody.com has to be the funniest site I've ever visited.
We sat there looking at the idiots holding the little signs till we had tears rolling down our cheeks. I'm making that site one of my "favorites" just for the laugh factor.
{sarcasm}Sarah Boxer knows her subject well. After all, surely nobody has ever met a liberal Malpractice Attorney or University Professor or Marketing Manager or School Administrator or Psychiatrist who flaunts their wealth{/sarcasm}.
"Surely a proper war against terrorism would combine tracking down terrorists, with alleviating hopelessness, poverty and brain-washing among its targets."
Spreading democracy conveniently achieves all of these things. Whether you agree the War on Terror is spreading democracy is another issue. If you don't, I refer you to Lebanon, Ukraine, and of course, the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan... and I think women recently got the right to vote in Kuwait.
But maybe these things aren't being carried out "properly" in your opinion...
Surely a proper war against terrorism would combine tracking down terrorists, with alleviating hopelessness, poverty and brain-washing among its targets.
Certainly. And that's exactly what we're doing. If you end oppression, promote democracy and civil rights, and allow free market capitalism you will destroy hopelessness, poverty, and brain-washing.
Heh. knoxgirl, I posted before I saw your comment. Guess we agree.
Damn, that's pretty big sports car! Maybe it's a sports SUV.
Kathleen b, don your burqa!
For me, the irony of Sarah Boxer and her article is that I used to get somewhat annoyed by people who 'flaunted' their New York Times subscriptions.
"how wonderful. I am sure the US soldiers who died to liberate Kuwait in 1990 are thrilled."
Wow. I really don't know how to respond to that, especially as you are female. I am officially astounded. I guess you really do think some things aren't worth dying for. Thankfully the soldiers who died in Kuwait likely did not agree with you.
if only we were spreading democracy.
??? Have you missed all of the pro-democracy demonstrations? The elections? ???
how wonderful. I am sure the US soldiers who died to liberate Kuwait in 1990 are thrilled.
Yes, I'm sure they are. They believed in something enough to fight and die for it. Do you?
Has anyone figured out if this Boxer is any relation (by blood or possibly marriage) to Barbara? It wouldn't be that big of a surprise...
There's not a better example of the brutish flaunting of wealth than being a writer for the NYT, getting paid to produce *crap ass* material. Talk about criticizing the "splinter in your your neighbor's eye..."
Yes, Kev, Barbara Boxer's taking a stand for the sole purpose of pointing out the extremely flawed United States voting system (not really to wage a war on John Kerry's behalf) is exactly like Susan Boxer's writing an inane article condemning wealth and leisure. Beautiful analogy. Brava! As they say..
Regarding, "For me, the irony of Sarah Boxer and her article is that I used to get somewhat annoyed by people who 'flaunted' their New York Times subscriptions."
When I see someone reading the NYT, I imagine him to be someone who needs the security of knowing that what he's learning is what good people believe. I imagine that he's satisfied by what amounts merely to middle-brow conformity and that he's not someone I should make the effort to get to know, because he wouldn't be able to tolerate the least of my immoral opinions.
Doug: There isn't a viable alternative to the NYT, so you're overdoing your inference. I want to read a real newspaper, not the pile of near-trash that is the local paper. Therefore, I have the NYT delivered to my house and I read it every day.
Ann, I love you!
That just reminded me that I forgot to go look at the Statesman today! Off to have a laugh now...
Kathleen:
I was referring to women voting in Kuwait as one of many recent developments that can be reasonably attributed as taking place *partly* as a result of our presence in the Middle East since 9/11.
You are the one who assumed I was referring to the Gulf War of 1990. I was responding only to what I took to be your assertion that the soldiers who fought in the Gulf War were somehow resentful of their sacrifice in general.
I also inferred a pretty dissmissive attitude toward women voting in Kuwait from your tone. Perhaps I was wrong.
Anyway, here's a bbc article about it, since you aren't familiar with it--or at least, you seem to be implying that I'm making it up or something.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4460781.stm
Ann,
I do remember though that a couple of days ago you were moaning that instead of reading the NYT the first thing in the morning, you are now blogging, and that day, you didn't get around to it until the evening, or thereabouts.
Bruce: True enough. I've gotten back to the old morning habit lately, though. I certainly do still want to read the paper.
Boxer really hit a nerve with that article. What's irresistible about it, aside from seeing the nation's greatest newspaper give a direct affront to the nation's sensibilities in a historic crisis, is how unintentionally revealing she is. She must have thought she was making a witty cultural observation while at the same time aligning herself on the right side of the rich-poor divide. Instead she revealed the pettiness and hypocrisy of her bourgeois Ivy League snobbism, her blithe contempt for ordinary people in favor of a romanticized other that, in actuality, would hate her. The article shows up that whole attitude as pathetically obsolete. Witty cultural observations are no longer wanted on this topic.
15 years have passed since our soldiers died to liberate Kuwait. And we are supposed to be excited now that you *think* women just got the right to vote there??? Wow. What low standards you have.
Did the women get the right to vote 15 years ago?
Also, you're focusing on a single tree and missing the huge forest right in front of you. Are you going to acknowledge the fact that democratic movements are starting to well up all over the place since we've gone to Iraq?
What we are doing is working.
kathleen b. said: "15 years have passed since our soldiers died to liberate Kuwait. And we are supposed to be excited now that you *think* women just got the right to vote there???".
The mission of the US forces in Kuwait was not to spread democracy, it was to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Kathleen, you seem to be either willfully disingenuous regarding the facts of that war and its basis, or you truly know very little about the subject.
The recognition in Kuwait of the basic human and democratic right to vote for women happened due to external and internal pressures on the Kuwaiti government. According to Al Jazeera: ""MPs (members of parliment) are being pressured from all sides ... locally and externally, to grant political rights to women," lawmaker Ali al-Deqbasi told the house."". The source of the 'pressure' to liberalize the Kuwaiti government?
The American left... HAH! Obviously I'm kidding! (That one even made me laugh.)
Ok back to reality. Actually, those 'pressures' came after the overthrow of Hussein and other diplomatic efforts were exerted against the Kuwaiti government. Where did these pressures emanate from you ask? The good old US of A., George W. Bush and his administration.
Bottom line, Bush's policies (along with the good Kuwaitis who struggled for years to secure the right) must be given a lot of credit for giving Kuwaiti women the right to vote beginning in 2007.
Regarding your unfortunate remark about the supposed 15 year span between America's liberation of Kuwait (remember no spreading of democracy, just kick Saddam's behind out of the country and split), what you wrote has absolutely no merit and makes no sense.
Regardless of what you think, the opinion that really matters is the *Kuwaiti's* themselves, so let's see what a Kuwaiti citizen - who knows just a thing or two about human rights - has to say regarding women's right to vote in Kuwait shall we?
""This is a celebration for democracy even though it is 45 years late," said Jassim al-Gitami, a former MP and head of the Kuwaiti Human Rights Association.""
Gee, it seems Mr. al-Gitami who I would guess knows just a bit more than you about 'Human Rights' in Kuwait, seems elated about achieving this goal in only 45 years. Imagine how thrilled he'd be if it had happened in only 15.
So, yes kathleen b., it is perfectly reasonable to be "excited" when a basic human right is restored to an entire people. Being excited about such things shows substance, heart, and good character.
Your unsuccessful attempt to subvert a significant human rights event in a self-centered and grasping attempt to bash Bush (ho. hum.) demonstrates a lack of knowledge about recent history in the Middle East, and callous lack of respect for the plight of the women of Kuwait.
I wonder about Sarah Boxer's editor. How could he or she let her make such a "brutish" fool of herself? She missed the whole point of the site, which is to say that "we" are going on with our normal lives, not cowering in fear as the terrorists want. They brag of their superiority because they embrace death. We embrace life, which includes going on vacation with the family.
I might add in response to her profile that I published my first cartoon at the age of 8. (It was lousy.) And I was reading Freud ("Civilization and Its Discontents") by the age of 15. She's not as smart as she thinks she is.
I thought the site would have something a little more mocking.
How can any reaction to a terrorist suicide bomber be too insensitive?
What are we supposed to say, "You're right! We deserved to be murdered for using public transportation."
This site was inspired by those inane websites with pictures of people apologizing for the war in Iraq. It's not just a message to the terrorists, but also to the fools who think we deserved these attacks.
Ziemer: I wasn't forgetting about the Wall Street Journal. It just doesn't have the kind of coverage of a wide variety of things that I'm looking for. I got both papers for a while and there's just no comparison: I'm interested in the things that are in the Times.
And with blogging, I just blog about anything that rubs me the wrong way.
Post a Comment