The Ten Worst States to Be a Dumb Slut

Amanda Marcotte, the harpy queen of the feminist blogosphere, has a new article on Alternet about the ten worst American states to be a woman.  She doesn't mince words, including claims that that "Mississippi has been such a bad state for women for so long it rarely even gets noticed in the news anymore." and "Kansas went from being a pretty bad place to be a woman to a hellhole rapidly."

What laws have Mississppi, Kansas, Arizona, Texas, and six other states passed?  Are they allowing men to beat their wives, requiring women to wear shawls in public, banning the education of women, not allowing women to vote, and/or disallowing women from owning property?

No, it turns out that all of these states have passed or are considering passing laws that more closely regulate abortion.

I've noticed that when feminists use the word "woman," as in "women's reproductive healthcare" or "women's rights," they really mean "dumb sluts."  Let's face it, in 21st century America, between condoms, pregnancy tests, IUDs, EC, and abortifacients, it is incredibly difficult for a woman of even below average intelligence to unintentionally get to the stage where surgical abortion or pregnancy are her only options. 

If you want to laugh at feminist illogic, overemotion, incendiary rhetoric, and sensationalism, click here.

What Would We Do Without Liberal Muckrakers?

In Alternet's main story for today, Stan Cox informs us that mariners live dangerous lives.  Truly, what would the world be like without such insight from liberal journalists?

Appearance Discrimination

If you thought liberals whine too much about racism and sexism and think concepts such as ableism, ageism, and sizeism are ludicrous, take a look at what is soon to be the new liberal -ism: lookism.

This article, written by career feminist Lindsay Beyerstein, is over a month old and was written shortly after the Deborahlee Lorenzana story came to light, but it is nonetheless an important look into the worldview of liberal women.

In her provocative new book,The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Law and Life, Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode argues that workers deserve legal protection against appearance-based discrimination unless their looks are directly relevant to their job performance. [...]

Considering that leftists rant about racism, sexism, heteronormativity, cisgendierism, ableism, classism, ageism, and sizism I am not surprised that some feminist law professor wants to ban "lookism."  In case anyone's curious, this is what the anti-lookist professor looks like.

It should go without saying that discrimination on the basis of appearance is unjust, especially when it comes to features individuals have little or no control over.

Actually, it should not go without saying. Only a liberal woman could write such an ignorant statement. Does she realize that, barring an odd fetish, even the most feminized, beta, herb liberal mangina still would have a much more positive reaction to a 9 model than he would an obese 2?  If discriminating on the basis of appearance is unjust, then as physical appearances tend to be very important to men when selecting a mate, most men are unjust.

She is incorrect when she claims that people have little or no control over their appearances. They can become fat if they are sedentary and eat too much. They can stay fit if they exercise and eat right. They can become muscular if they lift weights (among other things).


Aside from exercising, there are plenty of ways to change your appearance. Buying new clothing can enhance your appearance. Hair dye gives you a new hair color.  Make-up improves womens' faces (and mens' in some cultures). Fair women can tan. Dark women can use skin lightener.

Prior to feminism's triumph, women did a lot of things to improve their appearances. They took care of themselves; they wore make-up when going out; they wore skirts, dresses, and jackets; they wore feminine hats; they wore stockings; etc. It's only up until recently in Western history that women have taken to not caring about their appearances.

Also, it doesn't take that much work to avoid becoming obese. I'm a computer nerd, a member of a group not known for physical prowess, yet I exercise daily. It really is not very hard.

Rhode does a good job of spelling out why such bias is offensive to human dignity and equal opportunity. [...]

Equal opportunity sounds nice on paper, but in reality it doesn't work. Everyone is not equal. Some people are stronger, smarter, faster, smaller, larger, more dominant, or more attractive than others. No amount of liberal social engineering and legislation can change this.

The increasing prevalence of obesity in America has done nothing to curb virulent prejudice against fat people. Ironically, immobilizing obesity is protected as a disability, but discrimination based purely on cosmetic aversion to fat is totally legal.

It is perfectly legal because most people, even liberal manginas, think women who look like they could wrestle a bear and win are disgusting.

In one study, 43 percent of overweight women reported feeling stigmatized by their employers.

As they should be. If the remaining stigmas against fat were destroyed, most women in America would probably become lard buckets.  Most men would too, for that matter.

Obese women earn 12 percent less than their thinner counterparts with comparable qualifications. Obese women are more likely to live in poverty, even after controlling for other factors.

So, why shouldn't women who take care of themselves be rewarded? Obesity is largely a result of lack of self control and absence of willpower. People with no self-control are more likely to waste their money, so it is obvious that they will be more likely to end up in poverty.

Her most egregious assault on reality comes with this statement:

Rhode notes that beauty bias also exacerbates and perpetuates other kinds of discrimination. Female workers are held to more elaborate grooming standards than their male counterparts. [...]

What universe is she living in? At every level, men are held to higher grooming standards than women. Many lower-class retail/service jobs prohibit men from having long hair, whereas I've never heard of any employer prohibiting short, dykish haircuts on women.

Workplace appearance standards in general are stricter regarding men than women. Ties are often required in service industry jobs, yet they are not for women (this is not considered discrimination by the government, although it's a guarantee that the reverse would be).  Many workplaces specify attire for men, but allow women to basically wear anything except jeans.  In workplaces requring professional dress, the men will be covered from the neck down with jackets, ties, slacks, button-down shirts, close-toed shoes, and socks, while women can get away with wearing sleeveless shirts, garments that are essentially T-shirts, no jackets, skirts with bare legs, and sandals.

There's a lot of overlap between appearance discrimination and racism. Some have speculated that coworkers perceived Lorenzana in a more sexualized way because she's Latina. Stereotypically Anglo-European features like smooth hair, slim hips, and pert noses loom large in our prevailing beauty ideals.

Is there anything liberals dislike that is not racist?  And what is "Anglo-European"? I've never heard that word before. Is that a term referring to English people residing on the Continent?

There's a class component in beauty bias, too. A gleaming smile engineered by an orthodontist is a badge of membership in the middle class. As we all know, poverty increases the risk of obesity.

So not only is appearance discrimination racist, but it's classist, too!  It's like a discrimination doubleheader.

Also, poverty doesn't increase the risk of obesity.  Ultimately, low IQ causes both since people with low IQs are likely to have low time preferences and poor decision-making skills.  Not that I'd expect a liberal feminist to acknowledge that.

Rhode acknowledges that the law can only do so much to mitigate the effects of such deep-seated prejudices, but she argues that the enormity of the problem is no excuse for inaction. Sexism, racism and homophobia are certainly ingrained, but that doesn't mean that the law is powerless against them. As segregationists said in the era of Brown, you can't legally force people not to be bigots. On the other hand, when you discourage people from acting like bigots, tolerance can become a habit.

So because the War Against Racism has gone very well, we should extend it to battling the evils of appearance discrimination.  Fifty years ago, blacks and whites went to separate schools, lived in separate neighborhoods, and worshiped at separate churches.  Today, it's the same, if not worse since in the 1950s most blacks weren't born to single women.  A War Against Appearance Discrimination would be even more ineffective, since it would be difficult to prevent someone from having a visceral reaction upon seeing a bloated, obsese colossus or a woman who got smacked with an ugly stick.


Most people with racist views like myself are not biologically hardwired to view blacks as prone to crime or to view Asians as excelling in school (remember, even positive stereotypes are bad!).  These views come from statistical evidence and personal experience.  However, as Beyerstein notes in her article, even infants have a more positive reaction to people with attractive faces.  Appearance discrimination is part of our biology.

Even after a couple decades of brainwashing schoolchildren with "body acceptance" propaganda, it still exists.  Feminists will be unable to eradicate it from our society, no matter how much they try.  All they will do is attack another aspect of freedom of association and thrust upon us another destructive bureaucracy.


In modern America, it is unacceptable to hold women to any form of standards related to sexuality, including appearance.  Combined with the elite's veneration of equality no matter how absurd and laws against appearance discrimination are the natural consequence.

However, I think there's a more personal motive in Beyerstein's article on appearance discrimination.  She's the blond in the picture below.

"Middle-class" Welfare Queens

Over at Alternet, they posted an article about a "middle-class" single mother named Nan Mooney complaining about the fact that if her state cuts daycare subsidies, her artificial middle-class existence will cease to exist. Of course, since she's on a form of welfare (her subsidized daycare) she is not middle-class, but is just a lower-class person pretending to be middle-class thanks to the government (kind of like black affirmative action workers) or grew up middle-class but made low-class decisions and is being bailed out by the government.

This article exemplifies all that is wrong with America - from the welfare dependency, to the fatherless children and the sense of entitlement people like Mooney have.

One Thursday morning last month I took a break from my job as a journalist and freelance writer and, after dropping off my 2-year-old at his subsidized daycare, drove myself and my 10-week-old daughter across town to a cupcake shop. Our mission? To decorate Cupcake-grams that momsrising.org, a national non-profit that targets family and children's issues, planned to deliver to every last member of the Washington State legislature along with a note about the critical importance of early childhood care and learning.

I didn't do this just for the fun or the frosting. I did it because my livelihood was at stake.

Washington State had threatened deep budget cuts in a number of areas, including slicing $30 million from the Working Connections Childcare program that helped to fund my childcare. I'm a single parent. I work hard to support my family of three but I don't make anywhere near enough to pay the $2,000-plus a month I'd need to put two kids in full-time daycare. Working Connections gives me the freedom to work and therefore feed, clothe and house my children. If it goes, I'm screwed.

Note that there is no mention of a father or husband. Indeed, she fails to mention him at all in the article. Perhaps she should have thought about the difficulties of raising three children before she decided to become a career woman with three kids. True, the father (probably fathers) of her children might not pay much in child support, could be incapacitated or dead, and might have abandoned her and her children. However, if that was the case, she probably would have mentioned it to gain the sympathy of her reader. She would have appeared as a hardworking woman who fell on tough times rather than being a dumb slut who bit off more than she could chew.

Single career women with kids don't need a husband, remember? They are strong and independent women. Well, not quite independent, since they essentially use Big Government as a surrogate husband.

If she loses the subsidies, she says she will be screwed. Good. If more single mothers like her end up poor, maybe women will realize that both choosing to be a single mother and trying to live a middle class existence is impossible without some form of external support.

Though the cupcake protest may be an original spin on things, our merry band of frosters was far from alone. In Buffalo (childcare subsidies eliminated for four in 10 children), in Chicago (proposed $150 million cuts in human services, among them childcare), in Brooklyn (15 daycare centers slated to close in July) and in California (proposed cut of 18,000 childcare spaces), protesters are hitting the phone lines and the streets because they recognize something the legislators and the mainstream media seem to have missed: Child care really matters.

Due to the recession, tax revenues are down. Legislators can either 1) raise taxes or 2) cut spending. Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to significantly raise taxes during a recession and take more money from the very people who provide others with jobs. That leaves spending cuts, which no government agency is immune to right now. Even police departments are receiving funding cuts.

For the majority of today's families, child care is an expensive but all too necessary fact of life. In 1975, nearly half of families with children consisted of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker. Today, only one in five families still embody that traditional set-up. In fact mothers are now primary breadwinners--making as much or more than their spouse or filling the role of single working parent --in nearly four in 10 families. And as more mothers flood the workplace, families have to shoulder the often dizzying costs of finding someone else to watch their kids. Getting help with childcare isn't an added perk like a parking space in the company garage. It's a lynchpin, one that can affect healthy child development, job security and the frayed economic realities of today's low-income families.

In other words, liberals destroyed traditional America and are shocked at their results. Congratulations, you destroyed the family wage and made it impossible to support a middle-class family on one income, turned women into sluts, and turned men from being beta providers to being gaming pseudo-alphas and basement dwellers. Everything has a consequence. Liberalism is essentially an ideology that seeks to ignore consequences.

Also, she used the word "lynchpin" on Alternet. I'm surprised the editors allowed it, because it contains the word "lynch," which they probably think is a racist word (like "looter").

People need to appreciate that funding quality child are isn't just a work support issue, it's also a child development issue," says Danielle Ewen, the director of childcare and early learning at the Center for Law and Social Policy. "If we don't invest in early childhood care and learning, kids will arrive at school unprepared to learn. It will affect the number of children with special needs. It will affect graduation rates. It goes to the heart of what our public education system is all about."

For years, kids started elementary school at six or seven years old and they did well. America became the most powerful nation in the world without having kids start school when they were two or three. It sounds like Ewen is just another one of those liberal "experts" who wants to destroy childhood. Thirteen years of liberal indoctrination must not be enough.

For many of us, childcare subsidies play a critical role in the economic infrastructure, bridging the gap to provide a service as essential as food or housing. About 30 percent of all low-income families using child care centers, and 16 percent using an in-home care giver receive subsidies, about 14 percent of those who are federally eligible. Not only do such subsidies ensure that parents can work, they also place those children in healthy environments focused on development and learning. If subsidies disappear, many low-income families are forced into an impossible situation in which their income is less than the cost of paying someone to watch their child.

Once again, liberals fail to realize that actions have consequences. If these "low-income families" (liberal code words for "single black women and their brood of bastards with different fathers") can't support their spawn, then they should not engage in sex. Pretty much everyone other than pre-contact Australian aborigines and young children understands the relationship between sex and women having babies. It really is not a difficult concept.

It's a lifesaver," says Francine Almash, a Brooklyn resident and single parent who relies on subsidies to pay for daycare for her three children. Almash, who works as a freelance editor and splits her time between telecommuting and going in to the office, pays $5 a week to send her kids to a city-funded daycare center near her home. "Without the subsidies I'd have to pay a minimum of about $2,100 a month, even to put my kids in a city-funded daycare. There's no way I could possibly afford that. It's almost my entire income."

No liberal article demanding the government to spend money on something would be complete without a sob story.

Francine Almash is raising three kids in New York City while making around $25,000. She could at least move to a city with a lower cost of living. But that would involve "personal responsibility," a concept that is an anathema to liberals. What a dumb bitch.

When asked what she would do if her subsidy were cut, there's a long silence.

I don't know," Almash finally says. "I really don't know. Maybe I could try to keep one kid home? I'd probably just have to quit working and go on public assistance."

Perhaps Almash should have thought about this before she decided to raise three children as a single mother in New York City - not exactly a cheap place to live - while working as an editor. It's interesting to note that the author of this piece is also a single mother journalist. I wonder why so many single mothers are writers? If they are supporting a family on one income, they should probably

For families like Almash's, the loss of childcare subsidies would be devastating. The subsequent scramble for any kind of care, let alone a licensed quality provider, would force them to play fast and loose with their children's well-being.

In other words, they will have to deal with the consequences off their actions. This is what adults do.

"There are issues of child development and child safety at stake," says Heather Boushey, a senior economist with the Center for American Progress. "Without subsidies, more kids will wind up in unstable care situations that the parents are managing day to day. They may be shuffled around to friends or relatives or even be left home alone to take care of themselves."

There's another solution: single, career women shouldn't have bastard children. And if they do decide to have children, get married first so someone can watch the kid. As for kids having to be home alone, I understand the concern about younger kids, but once kids are of a certain age (say 9 or 10) is it really that big of a deal to have them walk home from school and stay home alone for an hour and a half until their mom comes come?

For many, the juggling required to grapple with suboptimal childcare can lead to taking days off work, arriving late and leaving early. As a result, parents risk losing those same jobs subsidies are meant to help facilitate. In addition, cuts in childcare dollars mean that childcare workers, many of whom are women and many of whom are single parents, now face having their hours cut or their jobs eliminated.

"In part, we see childcare subsidies as a job program," Boushey says. "Without reliable childcare, many low-income parents are forced into a position where they are less consistent on the job because they are dealing with childcare-related issues. They risk losing jobs and losing promotions. And in a tight job market like we have now, driving people out of the workplace is the last thing we want to be doing."

A more effective job program would be to slash the welfare/warfare state, abolish the income and capital gains tax, and allow wealthy people and small businessmen to create jobs. Also, expelling all illegal immigrants and many legal immigrants would help, too. That would be a far more effective job program than providing single women with an incentive to pop out bastards. It would also be a lot better for society than subsidizing the increase in the number of criminals and teen pregnancies that result from single motherhood.

What also seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle is how much such cuts could potentially cost individual states and the country as a whole. If I lost my daycare subsidy I would have to turn to food stamps, Medicaid, temporary assistance for needy families, Section 8, and every other social service out there to support my zero-income family. I would wind up the kind of financial burden no one's looking to take on these days. In addition, every child who doesn't get what they need in terms of early childhood care and learning risks costing the system more down the line in the form of behavioral problems or poor school performance.

If she would end up on welfare if she lost her daycare subsidy, she really isn't living a middle-class existence as she claims. She is living one artificially created with taxpayer dollars.

Also, due to the fact that her children are being raised by a single mother, they already are likely to have behavioral problems and poor school performance.

"Childcare faces a serious threat right now," says Ewen. "The short-term implications of the recession are very bad. We could see states making tremendous cuts, particularly once the stimulus money expires. The hard truth is that we can't make any reforms without resources. We know what we need to do -- develop a system in which the highest quality care is available to the widest range of families. Now it's a question of finding the means to do it."

The Obama administration seems committed to early childhood care and learning, pledging an additional $1.6 billion toward the Child Care and Development Block Grant in fiscal year 2011 (a pledge that still has to make it through Congress). Advocates hit a major stumbling block when the Early Learning Challenge Grant --$8 billion stretched across eight years targeted for education and learning for children from birth to age 5 --wasn't included in the final health care bill passed by the Senate. Now it's up to Congress to allocate more money to the states and also to states to put their own resources on the table.

Naturally, Obama and the Democrats will step in and further subsidize the destruction of the family with stolen money.

We can only hope they see the bigger issues at stake. Investing in childcare means investing in the future of our children and our education system, in job growth and creation.

She becomes very Orwellian in this sentence and the following ones.

By "investing" in childcare, she really means "take money from hardworking people via taxes and give it to single women." That is not investing, it is taking money from the people who invest.

It isn't a handout.

...

If this isn't a handout, then what is?

It's a crucial step toward helping individuals to help themselves.

No, it leads to the exact opposite. When someone gets $2000 a month from the government, as Mooney appears to, this does not cause them to take care of themselves. If they took care of themselves, that money would go way and they would have to pay $2000 a month out of their own pocket, so there is no incentive to help themselves. People realize they do not need to take care of themselves because the government will do it better than they can. This is one of the problems with welfare and why it is so destructive.

If Mooney wanted to take care of herself, she should have either not gotten pregnant or got married to the father of her children. Or she could have exercised this "choice" that feminists are always clamoring about.

Nan Mooney is the author of "(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" (Beacon, 2008). Read more about the book and her work at Nan Mooney.com.

Perhaps if Mooney is poor enough that her middle-class existence is endangered, she should find a more lucrative job than writing progressive political books for a non-profit organization (Beacon Press is run by a Unitarian group). And the reason why we are "not keeping up with our parents" is because liberals like her destroyed the society that our parents lived in, though I'm sure in her book she blames it on Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

I hate single mothers. I really do. I don't hate widows or mothers whose husbands/boyfriends turn out to be deadbeats, criminals, or otherwise worthless, but I hate single women who decide to have children knowing there will be no father in their children's lives and then expect everyone else (via government taxation) to pay for their decisions. Not only do I hate ghetto black welfare queens running around with their brood of five misbehaving nigglets, but I also hate "middle-class" white career women like this who have fatherless children and whine about the price of daycare (and the fact that school hours don't work well with office hours, that their employer won't give them time off to see their kids' school plays, etc.).

Nan Mooney is an embodiment of everything wrong with America.

"Looter" is a Racist Word

In yesterday's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a column headlined "Looters in Loafers." Joshua Holland (who appears to be the result of a dyke having a sex change operation) calls this "hopelessly naive" and implies that looters is a racist word because only black people are called "looters." To support his claim, he resurrects the set of pictures taken in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in which the caption says that a black kid "looted" food, but the caption for another picture claims that two white people "found" food. Of course, he doesn't mention the plainly visible fact that the pictures were taken by two different photographers working for two different companies.

Everything is racist to liberals. It is impossible for white people to do, say, or write anything that liberals will not find some way to turn into racism.

Tea Party Demographics

Over at Alternut, Tana Ganeva has a post entitled "Shocking: Tea Partiers Mostly Rich, White, Christian Guys." The data can be found here (PDF).

Much like all the founding fathers and most of the Republican party, a whole lot of the Tea Partiers are rich, white, Christian men. According to a new CNN poll (via TPM), a majority of respondents who had donated to a Tea Party group or participated in a Tea Party event were male, white, and identified as Protestant/Other Christian groups.

2010 is well before 2042, so whites are still a majority of the American population. Thus it should not be surprising that most Tea Partiers are white. Also, while women outnumber men in the United States, the gender gap is small enough that it would fall within the margin of error. The fact that most fall into the "Protestant/Other Christain (sic) groups" category is interesting but unsurprising. Jews are overwhelmingly liberal (but that's okay) and many American Catholics are either Democrat-supporting Hispanics or members of white ethnic groups that lean Democrat.

Keep in mind that "most," "mostly," and "majority" are vague terms meaning "greater than 50%." She never cites the exact statistics for those categories in her post, so those words are basically meaningless.

Regardless, it makes sense that whites make up most of the Tea Party movement. Whites pay most of the federal income taxes and blacks and Hispanics take a disproportionate amount in government services. True, poor blacks and Hispanics, like everyone else, pay payroll taxes, but they are basically refunded this through the EIC. Even in this era of multiculturalism, white self-hatred, and political correctness, the observation that whites pay more in taxes than NAMs is not lost on whites.

According to the data, the racial breakdown of the Tea Party activists was 80% white, 2% black, and 10% Hispanic. The percentages of all respondents was 71% white, 2% black, and 11% Hispanic. The margin of error was 3 percentage points. So it looks like the whiteness of the Tea Party movement is not due to the lack of Hispanic participation, but rather due to the fact that blacks want free stuff from Obama. The relatively high percentage of Hispanics in the movement compared to the overall population is probably due to the fact that only registered voters were polled, excluding illegal and non-citizen legal immigrants.

As for the fact that most of the Tea Partiers are men, it makes sense. After all, women can't exactly teabag liberals. Seriously, if you look at the data Ganeva linked to, 60% of the Tea Party Activists are male, which is a pretty substantial majority. This is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be supporting a family on their income, so they want to be able to keep more of their money, whereas a single career woman is only supporting herself and her cats and single mothers are essentially wedded to Big Government - they use it as a second source of income. Plus, women in general are more likely to support larger government.

It gets even better:

Also, most went to college. 40 percent are college grads, compared to just 28 percent of total poll respondents, and 34 percent have some college.

So much for the liberal myth that conservative voters are bunch of dumb rednecks. It's funny that liberals frequently accuse conservatives of being "anti-intellectual" and "anti-education," yet Tana uses this as evidence of how out of touch the Tea Partiers are. I thought being college educated was supposed to be a good thing.

They make a ton more money than the other people interviewed for the study: 34 percent make over $75,000, while 32 make between $50,000 and $75,000. That’s way more than half pulling in over $50,000. So real, genuine Americans seem to be doing pretty well for themselves(.)

I agree with the headline that this is "shocking." It is shocking that liberals are so out of touch with reality.

Here we have the liberal definition of "rich": someone making more than $50,000 a year. That's funny. I'm willing to bet that most of the white New Englanders and Left Coasters make more than $50,000 a year. So do most of the young, suburban Obamanites.

Actually, the people she considers rich make much less than $50,000 when you consider the fact that they have to feed the Leviathan with FICA, federal income tax, state income tax, property tax, sales tax, use tax, and myriad other taxes. (Aside: a good resource on taxes
in the USSA is the National Taxpayers Union.)
Where I come from, we have a term for someone making between $50,000 and $75,000: middle-class. Of course, I'm just from Jesusland. What would I know about anything.

None of this should be especially surprising. Most poor people scraping by in terrible, lowpaying (sic) jobs — or with no jobs — probably don’t have the time to don three-cornered hats and scream about communism."

Here we have some poor-worshiping. I don't think a liberal is capable of writing anything without a poor-worshiping paragraph. Yes, there are some poor people who are impoverished through no fault of their own and spend most of their time working. But most of these "poor people" are poor because they are drug-addicts, had kids at a young age, have low IQs, are criminals, or are just lazy. They have time to go to da club, smoke crack and weed, get drunk, and breed bastard children, so they have plenty of time. They choose not to go to Tea Parties because they disagree with the goals - they want more money from the government. Karl Marx called these people the "lumpenproletariat," while the current PC term is "underclass."

The rest of the "poor people" of whom she writes are either the kind of people Thomas Frank dislikes, working-class (proletariat) or rural whites who vote Republican, or they are people who had well-paying jobs until the Bush-Obama tag team (yes, I am oversimplifying) screwed everything up.

But there has been an MSM tendency to trumpet the movement as an eruption of populist rage by those crushed in the financial crisis. “Populism” liberals just don’t grasp, of course, because they’re all elitist and stuff

No, you don't grasp because you are too out of touch with reality and your ideology is defined by cognitive dissonance. You think global warming is bad, but nuclear power plants need to be shut down. Wind power is necessary, but you don't want wind farms in your back yard. We need to help the poor, but you don't donate any money to charities. The Iraq War is bad, but bombing white Christian Serbs is good. Bill Ayers is a good man, but Glenn Beck promotes sedition. I've gone a little off topic, but I think I've made my point about liberals' cognition and why it should be of no concern if they don't understand Tea Party populism.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to reconsider our associations of the word “elite” so it at least slightly correlates with things like money and privilage (sic).

When liberals refer to "privilege" they refer to their belief that every white, no matter their social class, is born with privilege that every black (even, say, Clarence Thomas) lacks. It's like the secular liberal version of original sin.

The fact is, someone who makes $65,000 a year (closer to $45,000 or so after taxes), is not "elite." The elites make more money than Tana could comprehend with her little mind (after all, anyone who thinks $50,000 is rich probably can't count too high). And guess what? In the 2008 election, people with incomes over $200,000 and people with master's and doctoral degrees favored Obama. Those are the elites. Accountants, truck drivers, small business owners, engineers, and retired factory workers are not.

Given demographic trends (PDF), this is definitely the movement the GOP should hitch their wagon to.

Her sarcastic remark is actually correct. More and more, white people are starting to realize what Obama and the Democrats really are and that no matter how hard you try, you can't please blacks. You'll just be called a racist.

The fact is, as America gets blacker and browner, more whites will begin to realize that the multicultural paradise is not arriving. They will notice the high crime rates, the failed schools, the roving, wilding gangs of black and Hispanic "youths," and the growing number of welfare parasites leeching off the 35% of their income they feed to the Leviathan. White Democrats who are exposed to this morph into Republicans. Now, the Republican Party as it currently exists is only slightly better than the Democratic Party, but the Tea Party movement has the potential to turn it into a true vanguard of liberty and sanity.