T1B

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:43 pm**

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?

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:09 pm**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:22 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Looks interesting. Is there a chapter devoted to IKYABWAI?
That's KC, MO, not KC, KS

There's a difference?

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:34 pm**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:33 pm**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:44 pm**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:53 pm**

BSmack wrote:I just think we should start by abolishing CORPORATE welfare first.

I'd settle for all at once. Deal?

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:56 pm**

Marty

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.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:24 pm**

War Wagon wrote:Marty

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.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:28 pm**

Here's a speech Frank gave when doing the book tour back in 2005.

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive ... etail/1903

Listen to it and then come back and call me a dumbfuck.
You'll probably call me a dumbfuck anyway, but listen to it.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:08 pm**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:41 pm**

Typical half-baked Ayn Rand gibberish.

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.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:26 pm**

Martyred wrote:Here's a speech Frank gave when doing the book tour back in 2005.

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive ... etail/1903

Listen to it and then come back and call me a dumbfuck.
You'll probably call me a dumbfuck anyway, but listen to it.

Well, I tried to listen to it, keeping an open mind and all.

Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage

Guess I'll go surf pron instead.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:32 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
Martyred wrote:Here's a speech Frank gave when doing the book tour back in 2005.

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive ... etail/1903

Listen to it and then come back and call me a dumbfuck.
You'll probably call me a dumbfuck anyway, but listen to it.
Well, I tried to listen to it, keeping an open mind and all.

Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage
Guess I'll go surf pron instead.

RIGHT-CLICK the speaker icon and select Save>MP3 or Save As...

I only ask that you listen to the first 15 minutes if you don't wish to invest too much time.
(Thomas Frank is actually from KC)

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:47 pm**

War Wagon wrote:fucked up welfare and entitlement system

dumb hick. what the fuck do you know about this?

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:11 am**

Martyred wrote:Thomas Frank is actually from KC

In other words, it is a statistical inevitability that Frank is either a tard, a fat tard, a gay tard or a totally full of shit tard.

I hate to say it, but I think you just kicked your own ass a bit there, Marty.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:18 am**

I suggest a current or prior KC residence to be the default method for discrediting any person of any profession.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:31 am**

mvscal wrote:
Martyred wrote:Thomas Frank is actually from KC
In other words, it is a statistical inevitability that Frank is either a tard, a fat tard, a gay tard or a totally full of shit tard.

I hate to say it, but I think you just kicked your own ass a bit there, Marty.

I'm reaching across the aisle in the spirit of bi-partisanship.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:34 am**

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.

Judge: Granted. You're free to go.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:15 am**

mvscal wrote:
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?

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:23 am**

BSmack wrote: Welfare is the most stimulative spending there is.

It's the Keynesian model...only with grape soda and Kools.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:14 am**

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.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:18 am**

R-Jack wrote:Kansas City Mizzurah sir. Lived there my whole life.

Lets get your stereotype straight here horse whisperer... somebody from KCMO would never refer to the great State of Missouri as rah.

If you want to speak to the St. Loser side of the state, it's ruh.

On the KC side, it's Missouree - or Misery if that floats your boat.

Now go flush yourself.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:26 am**

BSmack wrote:Welfare is the most stimulative spending there is. Every single penny a welfare recipient gets is returned to the economy.

Yes, if government was entirely separate from the economy - and it had money all of it's own to donate to the economy, then you would be correct.

But in reality, your take is perhaps THE most idiotic ever produced on the boards.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:34 am**

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.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:37 am**

So nice of the government to channel money away from employers and give it to drug dealers and lotteries.

I think we should start using the Brit term "dole" instead of glorifying it as "welfare."

Very appropriate.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:40 am**

Dins, explain how the economy is stimulated by taking money from Fred and giving it to Hank.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:45 am**

War Wagon wrote: If you want to speak to the St. Loser side of the state, it's ruh.

no

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:55 am**

Liberals do not need to know more about nascar; they need to talk more about money and class.

Smug little prick.

I'll guess his definition of 'class' is gender studies. A little more welfare from the radical wing of the bourgeoisie and everything's fine.

RACK the people of Kansas

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:59 am**

Bizzarofelice wrote:
War Wagon wrote: If you want to speak to the St. Loser side of the state, it's ruh.

no

No? That's all you've got?

You're pretty much always dancing around with nothing worth saying but for once try to expound on your epic take.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:03 am**

Dr_Phibes wrote:
Liberals do not need to know more about nascar; they need to talk more about money and class.

Smug little prick.

Phibes is not so quickly becoming my hero... these things take time.

I was gonna' try to work a NASCAR take in earlier today and you beat me to it.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:07 am**

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.

That's allz I was sayin.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:09 am**

Bizzarofelice wrote:
War Wagon wrote: If you want to speak to the St. Loser side of the state, it's ruh.

no

Everyone I've ever met from St Loser does the "ruh" thing.

And remember -- I live where the Flyovers go to fail next.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:14 am**

Dinsdale wrote: Everyone I've ever met from St Loser does the "ruh" thing.

Everyone I know from St. Louis, and I kinda know a lot of them, makes fun of people who say "ruh".

I might even know more about this subject than the venerated Dinsdale.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:18 am**

Bizzarofelice wrote:Everyone I know from St. Louis, and I kinda know a lot of them, makes fun of people who say "ruh".

I might even know more about this subject than the venerated Dinsdale.

Allz I knows is wht I knows.

And what I know is that you've met more St Losers in one day than I have in my life (not that I haven't met a boatload).

I'm not sayin... I'm just sayin.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:51 am**

Bizzarofelice wrote: Everyone I know from St. Louis, and I kinda know a lot of them, makes fun of people who say "ruh".

hmm... common ground then, internet Hi 5's. (don't let it go to your head, I still think you're gay.. you are gay)

mebbe folks who call it Missouruh are Arkansas transplants who wish they were from Memphis.

All I know is I cringe whenever I hear it and want to punch somebody.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:08 am**

mvscal wrote:
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...

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:22 am**

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Dinsdale wrote: Everyone I've ever met from St Loser does the "ruh" thing.

Everyone I know from St. Louis, and I kinda know a lot of them, makes fun of people who say "ruh".

This.

Uncouth necks are the only ones who say Missooruh. They are to be found primarily in the Ozarks and the western wasteland.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:46 pm**

So it looks like my use of "ruh" pretty much killed off a potential meme.

Oh well.

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:21 pm**

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….

T1B

Anyone here ever read this book?

Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?

Re: Anyone here ever read this book?