Post by khankrumthebulgar on Aug 22, 2009 9:05:11 GMT -5
Posted By Bernard Chapin On August 21, 2009 @ 12:00 am In . Column2 05, . Positioning, Africa, Politics, US News, World News | 47 Comments
Recently, yet another lowlight in our nation’s ongoing relationship with the Clintons occurred. Telling one from the other is not easy to do, but, when in doubt, recalling that Bill is the only member of the duo with any talent is the easiest way to identify them. Skill divergence aside, there is no denying the symbiotic nature [1] of their union. Narcissism and snobbery are their ubiquitous traits and, just as with the Buchanans in The Great Gatsby [2], the infamous Beltway power couple are careless people who reap destruction and then retreat “back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
Sad though it is to admit, like snarky leftists [3] on CNN, the Clintons will always be with us. The latest outrage involves Hillary and can be added to her side of their burgeoning ledger.
The plot of our secretary of state’s [4] early-August diplomatic trip [5] to Africa can be summarized as follows: she arrived, toured several nations, acted like a spoiled princess, and then refused to apologize for her abhorrent behavior.
The events were not predictable. It should have been When We Were Kings [6] all over again but trouble arose in the Congo. There, in a crowded auditorium, the woman who wished [7] to be queen lost her composure [8], which allowed the world to once more [9] glimpse the white-boned [10] demon [11] within.
What impertinence triggered her wrath? Well, it was due to a question being imposed upon her by a college student in the a-yuppieish [12] city of Kinshasa. Granted, should you believe you are better than 99 percent of the rest of humanity, then the kid wanting to know [13] what former President William Jefferson Clinton thought regarding China’s involvement with the World Bank in Congo would set you off too.
To normal folks, the offensiveness of the query was not immediately apparent, but rather than lower herself by treating the youngster as a fellow global citizen, Mrs. Clinton decided to play the ugly American [14].
She tiffed [15]: “You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not secretary of state; I am. If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.”
In light of the excellent impression George W. Bush [16] made [17] on the continent, her snortations were akin to hitting an African reset button [18]. The American people paid for Hillary to go on a diplomatic mission [19], but all they got out of it was a very expensive advertisement for Midol [20].
Her reaction was a whine for respect, but demanding respect “for your authority” usually means that you have none [21]. Were Mrs. Clinton’s spouse to have been Todd Palin, then bringing him up during a foreign policy press conference would be odd.
However, since Mr. Clinton is a former president who lately has been a major news item [22], it is perfectly understandable why the questioner would wonder what his opinion was regarding important geopolitical events. (Originally [23] it was thought that the student’s question was misinterpreted, but that now seems unlikely [24].)
Regardless of the question’s validity, most of us instinctively give students the benefit of the doubt — especially when we’re in public and “on the job [25].” Not so with Mrs. Clinton. Even though her adherence to political correctness would have predicted otherwise, the oligarch failed to spare a black third-world citizen a stroke from her sjambok [26].
While her display of arrogance made average Joes cringe, admittedly her pique was in keeping with Commandment Three of the Exponential Laws of Feminism — a movement of which Hillary is both icon [27] and lifetime member [28].
The essential dictate states: “Thou shall not pretend that one’s husband partner has anything to do with who you are either personally or professionally. He [sic] is, if anything, a mere accoutrement to your actualized and empowered existence as preordained by genitalia.”
Conversely, corollary 847a of the concomitant praxis to the counter-hegemonic laws of polymodal discourse [29] reads: “Should the man non-female in the union fail to consult with his harridan (more) estrogenized partner about his every decision or preference, then he is a pig unworthy of love or respect.”
So it’s pretty clear that there’s not much leeway on the issue. One doesn’t have to explain such a commandment to the left, though. They follow along intuitively. Democratic press flunkies responded to Hillary’s woodshedding of a young adult by urging us to, once again [30], move on. The New York Times even went so far as to pretend that the query was “apparently rude [31].”
Only it wasn’t. The student’s inquiry was perfectly acceptable. Later in the trip Hillary was asked [32] if she had any regrets relating to her outburst, but she pretended that the incident had never occurred. Just as with baking cookies [33], repentance is not for Hillary.
Numerous commentators [34] speculated that the buzz surrounding Mr. Clinton’s appearance [35] in North Korea left his bitter half brimming with envy. The adulation surrounding his visit supposedly increased her levels of irritation due to his eclipsing [36] (once more) a pedestrian spouse.
Yet the real causation behind Hillary’s verbal effrontery was an obese and improperly inflated ego. The Congolese before the microphone re-reminded the secretary of state of a smoldering and unpleasant fact — that without her husband, Mrs. Clinton would be nothing more than another overpaid Ivy League lawyer on the verge of retirement.
Bill, as POTUS [37], made “Hillary! [38]” Her “career” is a Clinton family sequel and her political viability is a product of her man’s past achievements. Her Democratic Party Senate nomination in 2000 was bestowed upon her. Mrs. Clinton did nothing to deserve it. In fact, it was Bill’s inglorious serial infidelities that resulted in New Yorkers feeling sympathetic [39] enough to vote for her.
Merely nine years ago Hillary had no representative experience [40] whatsoever. She never served the public in any capacity either at the civic, state, or federal levels — despite her later pretense [41] that first lady is an essential administrative position.
The resentment and arrogance emitting from the African stage stemmed from the type of rampant insecurity that only privilege [42] can create. Hillary’s status and celebrity are wholly fabricated and the young man in Kinshasa accidentally reminded her of this truth.
What he said is akin to approaching the ex-wife of Paul McCartney and wondering aloud what strategic brilliance led to her sudden and massive accumulation of wealth [43]. The answer is that the laws in England accorded McCartney’s ex-wife the same type of favor that the New York electorate did for Hillary in 2000.
Ridiculing and humiliating others is one method by which a charlatan [44] can experience (fleeting) feelings of power and transcendence. When your self-regard is as fragile as Hillary’s, one has no choice but to emit toxicity in the hopes that others will not peer too deeply into the shallow pool that contains your accomplishments.
Unfortunately, the secretary of state is not an unusual case in our one nation under therapy [45]. Blaming others for one’s own characterological limitations and weaknesses is inevitable for members of the self-esteem generation. After the hammer of reality hits, they will soon discover that they’re special … just like everyone else [46]. For once, her unique combination of insecurities has made Mrs. Clinton — baby boomer — woman ahead of her time.
Recently, yet another lowlight in our nation’s ongoing relationship with the Clintons occurred. Telling one from the other is not easy to do, but, when in doubt, recalling that Bill is the only member of the duo with any talent is the easiest way to identify them. Skill divergence aside, there is no denying the symbiotic nature [1] of their union. Narcissism and snobbery are their ubiquitous traits and, just as with the Buchanans in The Great Gatsby [2], the infamous Beltway power couple are careless people who reap destruction and then retreat “back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
Sad though it is to admit, like snarky leftists [3] on CNN, the Clintons will always be with us. The latest outrage involves Hillary and can be added to her side of their burgeoning ledger.
The plot of our secretary of state’s [4] early-August diplomatic trip [5] to Africa can be summarized as follows: she arrived, toured several nations, acted like a spoiled princess, and then refused to apologize for her abhorrent behavior.
The events were not predictable. It should have been When We Were Kings [6] all over again but trouble arose in the Congo. There, in a crowded auditorium, the woman who wished [7] to be queen lost her composure [8], which allowed the world to once more [9] glimpse the white-boned [10] demon [11] within.
What impertinence triggered her wrath? Well, it was due to a question being imposed upon her by a college student in the a-yuppieish [12] city of Kinshasa. Granted, should you believe you are better than 99 percent of the rest of humanity, then the kid wanting to know [13] what former President William Jefferson Clinton thought regarding China’s involvement with the World Bank in Congo would set you off too.
To normal folks, the offensiveness of the query was not immediately apparent, but rather than lower herself by treating the youngster as a fellow global citizen, Mrs. Clinton decided to play the ugly American [14].
She tiffed [15]: “You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not secretary of state; I am. If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.”
In light of the excellent impression George W. Bush [16] made [17] on the continent, her snortations were akin to hitting an African reset button [18]. The American people paid for Hillary to go on a diplomatic mission [19], but all they got out of it was a very expensive advertisement for Midol [20].
Her reaction was a whine for respect, but demanding respect “for your authority” usually means that you have none [21]. Were Mrs. Clinton’s spouse to have been Todd Palin, then bringing him up during a foreign policy press conference would be odd.
However, since Mr. Clinton is a former president who lately has been a major news item [22], it is perfectly understandable why the questioner would wonder what his opinion was regarding important geopolitical events. (Originally [23] it was thought that the student’s question was misinterpreted, but that now seems unlikely [24].)
Regardless of the question’s validity, most of us instinctively give students the benefit of the doubt — especially when we’re in public and “on the job [25].” Not so with Mrs. Clinton. Even though her adherence to political correctness would have predicted otherwise, the oligarch failed to spare a black third-world citizen a stroke from her sjambok [26].
While her display of arrogance made average Joes cringe, admittedly her pique was in keeping with Commandment Three of the Exponential Laws of Feminism — a movement of which Hillary is both icon [27] and lifetime member [28].
The essential dictate states: “Thou shall not pretend that one’s husband partner has anything to do with who you are either personally or professionally. He [sic] is, if anything, a mere accoutrement to your actualized and empowered existence as preordained by genitalia.”
Conversely, corollary 847a of the concomitant praxis to the counter-hegemonic laws of polymodal discourse [29] reads: “Should the man non-female in the union fail to consult with his harridan (more) estrogenized partner about his every decision or preference, then he is a pig unworthy of love or respect.”
So it’s pretty clear that there’s not much leeway on the issue. One doesn’t have to explain such a commandment to the left, though. They follow along intuitively. Democratic press flunkies responded to Hillary’s woodshedding of a young adult by urging us to, once again [30], move on. The New York Times even went so far as to pretend that the query was “apparently rude [31].”
Only it wasn’t. The student’s inquiry was perfectly acceptable. Later in the trip Hillary was asked [32] if she had any regrets relating to her outburst, but she pretended that the incident had never occurred. Just as with baking cookies [33], repentance is not for Hillary.
Numerous commentators [34] speculated that the buzz surrounding Mr. Clinton’s appearance [35] in North Korea left his bitter half brimming with envy. The adulation surrounding his visit supposedly increased her levels of irritation due to his eclipsing [36] (once more) a pedestrian spouse.
Yet the real causation behind Hillary’s verbal effrontery was an obese and improperly inflated ego. The Congolese before the microphone re-reminded the secretary of state of a smoldering and unpleasant fact — that without her husband, Mrs. Clinton would be nothing more than another overpaid Ivy League lawyer on the verge of retirement.
Bill, as POTUS [37], made “Hillary! [38]” Her “career” is a Clinton family sequel and her political viability is a product of her man’s past achievements. Her Democratic Party Senate nomination in 2000 was bestowed upon her. Mrs. Clinton did nothing to deserve it. In fact, it was Bill’s inglorious serial infidelities that resulted in New Yorkers feeling sympathetic [39] enough to vote for her.
Merely nine years ago Hillary had no representative experience [40] whatsoever. She never served the public in any capacity either at the civic, state, or federal levels — despite her later pretense [41] that first lady is an essential administrative position.
The resentment and arrogance emitting from the African stage stemmed from the type of rampant insecurity that only privilege [42] can create. Hillary’s status and celebrity are wholly fabricated and the young man in Kinshasa accidentally reminded her of this truth.
What he said is akin to approaching the ex-wife of Paul McCartney and wondering aloud what strategic brilliance led to her sudden and massive accumulation of wealth [43]. The answer is that the laws in England accorded McCartney’s ex-wife the same type of favor that the New York electorate did for Hillary in 2000.
Ridiculing and humiliating others is one method by which a charlatan [44] can experience (fleeting) feelings of power and transcendence. When your self-regard is as fragile as Hillary’s, one has no choice but to emit toxicity in the hopes that others will not peer too deeply into the shallow pool that contains your accomplishments.
Unfortunately, the secretary of state is not an unusual case in our one nation under therapy [45]. Blaming others for one’s own characterological limitations and weaknesses is inevitable for members of the self-esteem generation. After the hammer of reality hits, they will soon discover that they’re special … just like everyone else [46]. For once, her unique combination of insecurities has made Mrs. Clinton — baby boomer — woman ahead of her time.