Amazon.com Review
The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically. To much of America, Kansas is an abstract, "where Dorothy wants to return. Where Superman grew up." But Frank, a native Kansan, separates reality from myth in What's the Matter with Kansas and tells the state's socio-political history from its early days as a hotbed of leftist activism to a state so entrenched in conservatism that the only political division remaining is between the moderate and more-extreme right wings of the same party. Frank, the founding editor of The Baffler and a contributor to Harper's and The Nation, knows the state and its people. He even includes his own history as a young conservative idealist turned disenchanted college Republican, and his first-hand experience, combined with a sharp wit and thorough reasoning, makes his book more credible than the elites of either the left and right who claim to understand Kansas. --John Moe
From The New Yorker
Kansas, once home to farmers who marched against "money power," is now solidly Republican. In Frank's scathing and high-spirited polemic, this fact is not just "the mystery of Kansas" but "the mystery of America." Dismissing much of the received punditry about the red-blue divide, Frank argues that the problem is the "systematic erasure of the economic" from discussions of class and its replacement with a notion of "authenticity," whereby "there is no bad economic turn a conservative cannot do unto his buddy in the working class, as long as cultural solidarity has been cemented over a beer." The leaders of this backlash, by focussing on cultural issues in which victory is probably impossible (abortion, "filth" on TV), feed their base's sense of grievance, abetted, Frank believes, by a "criminally stupid" Democratic strategy of triangulation. Liberals do not need to know more about nascar; they need to talk more about money and class.
Looks interesting. Is there a chapter devoted to IKYABWAI?
Joe in PB wrote:
Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote:
They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
Goober McTuber wrote:Looks interesting. Is there a chapter devoted to IKYABWAI?
That's KC, MO, not KC, KS, you fucking idiot.
Take this to the books and film thread. Then step in front of a bus.
kcdave wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
Kansas, like any reliable 'red' state, is against a fucked up welfare and entitlement system whereby those who actually work for a living support the deadbeats who were born sucking the government teat and intend to do just that in perpetuity.
War Wagon wrote:Kansas, like any reliable 'red' state, is against a fucked up welfare and entitlement system whereby those who actually work for a living support the deadbeats who were born sucking the government teat and intend to do just that in perpetuity.
You haven't read the book (I have by the way...I've even mentioned it in the past)
You should.
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote:
Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
War Wagon wrote:Kansas, like any reliable 'red' state, is against a fucked up welfare and entitlement system whereby those who actually work for a living support the deadbeats who were born sucking the government teat and intend to do just that in perpetuity.
I have always been for the abolition of all welfare. I just think we should start by abolishing CORPORATE welfare first.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."
—Earl Sinclair
"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.
I don't need to read a book written by a liberal, for liberals, panned by liberals, to explain to me why I'm conservative and despise liberal policy.
My entire family is liberal to varying degrees and it has made for some interesting holiday get togethers once the alcohol kicks in. I'm pretty sure one of my brothers is a flat out commie.
I don't need to read a book written by a liberal, for liberals, panned by liberals, to explain to me why I'm conservative and despise liberal policy.
My entire family is liberal to varying degrees and it has made for some interesting holiday get togethers once the alcohol kicks in. I'm pretty sure one of my brothers is a flat out commie.
Your country isn't in a horrible mess because Laqueesha uses her welfare cheque to "get her nails did".
Not even close. That's what the book is about.
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote:
Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
BSmack wrote: I just think we should start by abolishing CORPORATE welfare first.
Of course you do. You're an idiot. Corporations produce goods and services and provide jobs. What do individual welfare recipients produce? Other than crime and more welfare recipients.
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
The corporations getting the huge welfare bailouts have systematically shipped jobs out of America--and funneled their profits out of the American economy as well.
The Bush tax-cuts have proven disastrous, as has the deregulation agenda upon which the entire (unelected) malignancy was based.
Moreover, the disparity of wealth and income between the tiny top percentile of the corporate swine and the general population is now resembling the 19th--and 18th!!--century.
The so-called economic experts upon which the toxic and fake libertarian model has been advanced into actual policy have ALL been proven fatuous and flailing frauds. All are disgraced--let's be clear: Leo Strauss, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke are all plainly proven as disastrous galling failures. Or what?
Of course gaseous lisping piggies like Rusp Limpdick will continue to squeal and whine their inane jabber. But so what? Both his and Hannity's ratings have dropped by a full third recently as people--regardless of their basic education--are realizing he's completely full of shit. Just like you, Avi, just like you.
The speech by Thomas Frank, meanwhile, is rational, coherent, and accurate.
Prosecutor: Now sir, you are a crime scene expert, specializing in DNA forensics. Correct?
Expert: That is correct sir
Prosecutor: Have you examined the crime scene?
Expert: Yes sir. I have extracted DNA samples from the blood and semen left on the bedsheets and in the room. There were only two types of DNA present at the scene. One set belonging to the victim.
Prosecutor: And did the other set match the DNA samples of the defendant that were in the counties database?
Expert: Yes sir.
Prosecutor: And how possible is it, in your expert opinion, to have a false match in this situation.
Expert: None sir. This is a strand for strand carbon copy.
Prosecutor: Thank you. Your witness.
Defense: Mr. Smith, where do keep an established residence.
Expert: Kansas City Mizzurah sir. Lived there my whole life.
Defense: That's fantastic. No further questions. Your Honor, I request a dismissal.
BSmack wrote: I just think we should start by abolishing CORPORATE welfare first.
Of course you do. You're an idiot. Corporations produce goods and services and provide jobs. What do individual welfare recipients produce? Other than crime and more welfare recipients.
Welfare is the most stimulative spending there is. Every single penny a welfare recipient gets is returned to the economy.
Tell me you knew?
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."
—Earl Sinclair
"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.
poptart wrote:
But in reality, your take is perhaps THE most idiotic ever produced on the boards.
It's rare you'll ever catch me defending a political take from B, he did state earlier that he opposed the welfare program. Qualified as such, he was merely commenting on its reation to "stimulus spending."
Taken in that context, it's fairly accurate.
I'm opposed to the welfare program, as well. Institutionalized racism is all it is.
When you subsidize something, the simple rules of economics dictate you create more of it (or more demand for it). In this case, someone came up with the brilliant idea to subsidize... poverty.
poptart wrote:Dins, explain how the economy is stimulated by taking money from Fred and giving it to Hank.
I'm not saying it is... I was merely making the horrible mistake of crawling inside B's head... it was a scary trip... I just about went out and ran up the hill and starte ransacking the homes of the wealthy.
But... we have the (stupid and misplaced) concept of "stimulus spending." Within that fawed concept, it's hard to argue that 's take on it is inaccurate -- that's about as "boots on the ground" as "stimulus spending" gets. Paul gets paid with his ill-gotten gains from Peter right now.So if you're trying to inject "government money" (thre's no such thing, but the brainwashing has been somewhat effective) into the American economy, that gets it rolling right the fuck now.
BSmack wrote:Welfare is the most stimulative spending there is. Every single penny a welfare recipient gets is returned to the economy.
Tell me you knew?
You're a fucking moron. Every single penny a welfare recipient receives was removed from the economy in the first place.
Sure, you lunatic wind-up parrot...
here's what you've just stated, explained..
Fact: Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion (source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures)
Fact: Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. (source: CBO figures)
Corporate welfare programs are protected at the expense of the poor and powerless. In the last Congress, spending for the needy absorbed the majority of spending cuts, while corporate welfare spending was barely touched.
Fact: Over 90% of the budget cuts passed by the last Congress cut spending for the poor -- programs that ensure food for the needy, housing for the homeless, job training for the unemployed, community health care for the sick. (source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Bearing Most of the Burden, 1996).
Fact: Only 3.9% of total federal outlays go to programs that solely benefit poor people.
Welfare programs for corporations do not play by the same rules as welfare for people. Welfare benefits for individuals and families are limited by strict eligibility requirements and time limits, while corporations get corporate welfare benefits regardless of wealth or accountability.
It's apparent that genuine wind-ups like you don't realize when you've been recruited. And...you were recruited, weren't you?...it's okay...
Goober McOnions42 wrote:Looks interesting. Is there a chapter devoted to IKYABWAI?
Yes there is. It’s right after the chapter on “Common Geographical Misnomers of the Flyover.” But it’s pwesome the publisher decided to go with a large print edition so political geezers like you can enjoy it too…
A better title might’ve been “What’s the Matter with Liberals from Kansas?” Crazy as it sounds, the common sense, salt-of the-earth types that populate the majority of that state don’t particularly cotton to an ideology that vociferously defends a woman’s “legal right” to have the brains sucked out of her baby’s skull moments before its birth.
But I’ll give the author his due. Kansas has both kinds of politicians: Moderate AND Conservative Republicans. Any philosophy that drives the local Red Star into a daily fit of printed apoplexy can’t be a bad thing….
