Breakfast Scramble (Wednesday)

It is the incompetence stupid , Eugene Robinson, Washington Post plays the race card and tries to argue that the Teat Party movement is somehow racists:

I have to wonder what it is about Obama that provokes and sustains all this tea party ire. I wonder how he can be seen as “elitist,” when he grew up in modest circumstances — his mother was on food stamps for a time — and paid for his fancy-pants education with student loans. I wonder how people who genuinely cherish the American dream can look at a man who lived that dream and feel no connection, no empathy.

I trump Robinson’s race card, with an incompetence card.   Never attribute to racism what can be explained by sheer incompetence.   Barack Obama is somehow uneducated, lazy, but yet arrogant.    Go figure.

The same person who was hailed as a brilliant orator and communicator, spent two years explaining, or at least attempting to explain, his policies,  now attribute his, and his party’s woes to the public’s failure to understand his policies.

Incomplete, Michael Kinsley argues, rather lamely, that the United States is not the greatest country,from Politico:

This conceit that we’re the greatest country ever may be self-immolating. If people believe it’s true, they won’t do what’s necessary to make it true. The Brits, who suffer no such delusion (and who, in fact, cherish the national myth of being people who smile through adversity), have just accepted cuts in government spending that no American politician — even a tea bagger — would dream of proposing. Maybe these cuts are a mistake or badly timed, but when the British voted for “change,” they really got it.

Kinsley is free to argue the United States is not the greatest country.   Yet  Kinsley never defines what  he means by greatest country, suggests which is the greatest country, nor reveals his plan to emigrate there, wherever  there is.

Stupid, Dumbo holds that as voters don’t like neither his policies nor objectives that they are stupid.  Now British homophile, Stephen Fry, has basically said that as women don’t like to have sex with him, that they therefore don’t like to have sex, at all, from Neil Sears, Daily Mail:

He has been called ‘the cleverest man in Britain’. But even Stephen Fry’s fans must feel there are limits to his expertise.

And as one of the country’s most famous homosexuals, female sexuality is unlikely to be one of his specialist topics.

Yet 53-year-old Fry has raised eyebrows by claiming that women are unenthusiastic about sex, and see it only as ‘the price they are willing to pay for a relationship’.

Retort, Darleen Click, Protein Wisdom:

… being a gay man doesn’t make one an expert on female sexuality.

Further retort,Caroline Winters, Woman’s-World:

I could defensively argue that, wait, some women do like casual sex as much as men! That is certainly true, but it misses the point entirely. The real problem with Fry’s comments is that he appears to qualify a person’s interest in sex in terms of their interest in shtupping strangers. Per the usual, sex is defined in men’s (supposed) terms: Real sex, sexy sex, is sex of the uncommitted wham-bam variety. Sex within committed relationships is written off. Truly liking sex means liking it with strangers, because emotion and intimacy dilute sexual pleasure – or something.

Mr. Fry’s view, such as it is not sexist, per see, in that it does not reflect a male view.   Men too covert relationships.   Rather Fry’s view is that the homonormative that can’t see past the causal  hook up of the tea room scene.   As Fry can not understand the value of relationships,  he doesn’t undersand why anybody would value them.   That should be viewed as Fry’s loss, and not as his panacea for a better world.

Man up Mr. Fry.