re: The Bay Area's Progressive Paradox
I learned a few things from this article:
S.F. and the Bay Area as a whole highlight the myriad contradictions and hypocrisies that characterize many leftists. Understanding these contradictions is key to formulating an effective strategy for combating the liberal plague.
This statement appears to be the conclusion, but I really think that it's the premise of the article. Foundationally, leftists are hypocrites, and other political groups are less so. This also implies non-leftists can formulate strategies against hypocrisy. It seems that if this were true, we could have done away with it some time ago.
Something just tells me that growing numbers of regular people will notice that, in spite of the prevailing progressive ethos, their standards of living continue to diminish.
I have to wonder what is this time frame of "continue to diminish." Do you think this is over the last 40-50 years, or maybe over the last 200 years. It would be interesting to read a poll from people under 40 compared to those over 50.
I am forced guess that the definition of "regular people" means only those people with diminishing standards of living. Equivalently, anyone with an improving standard of living is no longer a "regular" person. Statistically, this means to me that those with higher education levels won't be considered as regular people given that definition.
As much as liberals champion humanity in the abstract, the greed that permeates cities such as S.F. is rendering life increasingly unbearable for actual human beings.
This seams to imply that only liberals are responsible for the unbearableness of living in SF for "actual" human beings. Does this mean that if living in SF is bearable, those people are not "actual" human beings. This appears to be an overly convenient definition.
From my standpoint, the economic changes, good or bad, in any city will be from liberals and conservatives, and all stripes in between.
San Francisco’s divide between the haves and have-nots would give Sheldon Adelson a wet dream.
The implication here is that Sheldon Adelson wants wealth disparity. Is this right? He supports Republican candidates and the GOP. He gave $30mm to Rommey, $23mm to the GOP, $15mm to Gingrich.
washingtonpost.com
From the article's comment about being a wet dream, can you tell if the author thinks Adelson is a good buy or bad guy. You can't really call him a lefty. I've read from your posts that you're not fond of Zionists, or the Zionist-controlled media. Is this one of the guys you are referring to? |
