The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Under-the-Bleachers Blogger Externalizes Rage, Demands to See Speedo Picture

Posted on | September 24, 2010 | 98 Comments

Susie Madrak’s conference-call complaint that the Obama White House treats liberal bloggers like “the girl you’ll take under the bleachers but you won’t be seen with in the light of day,” has become the hottest topic on the ‘sphere. The premise of the conflict is itself a conundrum, as Allahpundit says:

Mind you, the purpose of the call was for Axelrod to beg the nutroots to help get rank-and-file Democrats excited to vote in November. . . . Aren’t lefty bloggers already doing everything they can to scare the hell out of their readers about the coming GOP wave? Didn’t Kos, whose site is big enough to have generated an annual conference attended by top Democrats, just publish a book comparing conservatives to the Taliban? What more do you want them to do, Ax, immolate themselves in grief?

Aleister of American Glob compares Madrak’s situation to Flounder in Animal House, and Left Coast Rebel says:

The story here is not that the ‘professional left’ is pissed with Obama. The real story here is that far-left, pseudo Bolshevik smear merchants like those at Crooks and Liars are given access to the White House in any shape, matter or form in the first place.
And the fact that a blogger at Crooks and Liars has her you-know-whats in a bunch? Give me a break, she’s a fringe-kook, that would probably make Ward Churchill look moderate.

She’s obviously got anger issues of the sort that raise the question, “If a tree falls in the forest, and there are no Republicans around to blame, who does Susie Madrak cuss at?”

Singling me out among the bloggers laughing at her absurd rage, Madrak writes, “Imagine, this guy thinks I’m ugly!”

Did I ever say any such thing? I merely remarked on “the demonstrably greater pulchritude of [conservative] lady-bloggers” — a neutral, objective fact — and certainly I did not offer myself as anyone’s aesthetic beau ideal.

You don’t hurt my feelings by telling me I’m ugly, a fact I happily admit. Once at a keg party, some redneck looking for a fight walked up to me and said, “I don’t like your face.” To which I responded, “That makes two of us, buddy. I never liked it much myself.”

Here’s the difference again, you see? I’ve written at length about this problem:

Good mental health is characterized by optimism and a sense of agency — that is to say, the belief that we are ultimately in control of our own lives. The sense of agency is critical to success and happiness in every area of life, in large part because it is necessary to self-improvement and problem-solving.
Everyone encounters failure and disappointment, but a person who believes that his life is within his own control will respond to such setbacks in a positive, constructive way — analyzing the cause of the failure, seeking ways to improve, determining to work harder to overcome disadvantages and remedy personal deficiencies. A psychologically healthy person therefore must accept responsibility for his failures and shortcomings just as willingly as he accepts reward for his successes and abilities.
While it is true that other people sometimes contribute to our failures by undermining our efforts, it is also true that our successes generally require the assistance of others. Factors which are genuinely beyond our control tend to even out over time. In a free and prosperous society, few people are so disastrously disadvantaged as to have no hope whatsoever of improving their lot in life.
Thus, it is psychologically unhealthy to blame others whenever things go wrong in our lives, but this is exactly what “therapeutic morality” encourages.
Attempting to comfort people by flattering their sense of blamelessness — “It’s not your fault” — therapeutic morality ultimately undermines the vital sense of agency, in effect telling people that they are neither culpable nor competent. It promotes the notion of innocent victimhood, the blameless self, and encourages people to avoid responsibility for their failures by wallowing in self-pitying rationalizations.

Maybe it’s not your fault you’re ugly, but it’s nobody else’s fault, either. Yet how often have we seen this phenomenon of unattractive women who spend their lives angry at the world, as if their ugliness were somebody else’s fault? Indeed, this phenomenon has a name: Feminism.

Excuse me for invoking Undeniable Truth of Life No. 24, but that’s what feminism is really all about. Complaining about the “oppressive patriarcy” is just an externalization of resentment, a self-pitying rationalization: “I’m not as pretty or popular as other women, therefore, I’m a victim.”

You’re not a victim. You are, in fact, drastically overprivileged — a citizen of the most free and prosperous nation in all human history, abounding with unprecedented opportunity.

Your problem, Susie Madrak, is your pity-party mentality, wherein the inevitable unfairness of life is perceived as some sort of conspiracy against you. As my late father often told me, whenever I’d complain that something seemed unfair, “Boy, whoever told you life was supposed to be fair?”

Hardship is God’s way of teaching us to be more grateful. Why should we sit around brooding over our shortcomings and disadvantages, when we have so many blessings and opportunities?

Yet when you look at someone happy and successful, Susie Madrak, all you feel is envy and hatred. We aren’t surprised, because such is the basic ideology of liberalism.

The poor are poor, you believe, because the rich are rich. You conceive grandiose schemes to rectify this inequality, and your desire to feel morally superior to others inspires you to this narcissistic conception of politics: Those who do not share my egalitarian vision are stupid and selfish, whereas I am intelligent and generous.

That conception not only explains your rage at Republicans, Susie Madrak; it also explains your confused rant at Axelrod. If your absurdly ambitious policy schemes prove unworkable and unpopular — if your ridiculous agenda of Hope and Change and Rainbows and Unicorns turns out to be a big fat failure — well, that failure certainly cannot be your fault, can it?

You fell for Obama’s act hook, line and sinker. It has clearly failed as policy and is evidently on the verge of failing as politics, and now the only thing you can do is look for scapegoats.

Blame Glenn Beck! Blame Sarah Palin! Blame David Axelrod!

See? It’s not your fault. Nothing is ever your fault. Because you’re a liberal and therefore blameless.

Why does David Axelrod treat you with contempt? Because you deserve it. See, Axelrod got paid — and paid very well — to sell Obama’s act to you chumps. The fact that you bought it, and then went out to sell it to other people even more gullible than yourselves, only goes to show what natural-born chumps you are. Or to cite Professor Reynolds’ response to a similar example:

JON STEWART ON OBAMA: “I thought he’d do a better job.” You did, huh? Based on what, his extensive experience? Rube.

If I may quote your own words back to you, Susie Madrak:

Hey, you. Shut up and sit down. Yes, you.

You’ve got nothing to complain about, ma’am. You are the author of your own disgrace, having devoted years to the advancement of false ideas and false leaders. Rather than blaming the people who have deceived you, or blaming yourself for believing their lies, instead you continue to blame the same old bogeymen: Republicans, Christians, “Corporate America,” capitalism, patriarchy, etc.

Hell’s bells, you even blame me! Well, let me remind you of something you wrote a few years ago:

I rarely comment on what right-wing blogs do. They’re witting tools of the Republican smear machines, they just make shit up. So I ignore them.

Perhaps you should resume that policy.

Maybe I’m notoriously ugly now, but once upon a time, I didn’t look too shabby in a Speedo.

Made you look, didn’t I?

Category: Barack Obama, Blogging, Liberals

Comments

98 Responses to “Under-the-Bleachers Blogger Externalizes Rage, Demands to See Speedo Picture”

  1. Dicken
    September 28th, 2010 @ 11:04 am

    RSM moved in for the kill::==))Fucked Under the Bleachers How Liberals Got Screwed by Hope and Change.

    Blog Fu master (in speedo) sliced her to bits and sent her away bleeding from every pore. Poor MadDreck, pick someone your own cup calibre next time.