The Hello Bar is a simple web toolbar that engages users and communicates a call to action.

Talking Points Memo has a story today of true heroism (via memeorandum). A brave left-wing Rutgers economist saw Paul Ryan in cahoots with evil right-wing lobbyists and actively oppressing the poor and downtrodden of America. Unable to resist the righteous fervor welling in her heart she confronted the blackguard,  spoke truth to power to him, and left him utterly speechless.

Alternately, a half-drunk sanctimonious progressive had dinner in an expensive restaurant, saw Paul Ryan drinking wine, and ruined his evening by confronting him in a flurry of booze breath, hypocrisy, and left-wing platitudes.

You be the judge.

Feinberg, an economist by training, was even more appalled when the table ordered a second bottle. She quickly did the math and figured out that the $700 in wine the trio consumed over the course of 90 minutes amounted to more than the entire weekly income of a couple making minimum wage.

“We were just stunned,” said Feinberg, who e-mailed TPM about her encounter later the same evening. “I was an economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out that those two bottles of wine was more than two-income working family making minimum wage earned in a week.”

She was outraged that Ryan was consuming hundreds of dollars in wine while Congress was in the midst of intense debates over whether to cut seniors’ safety net, and she didn’t know whether Ryan or his companions was going to pay for the wine and whether the two men were lobbyists. She snapped a few shots with her cell phone to record the wine purchase.

Where would she have been with that training in economics that allowed her to do simple math? It’s a shame that her economics degree didn’t also teach her that the money Paul Ryan and his friends spent that night belong to them and not the United States Government nor that nothing in the world prevented her from giving the money she spent on dinner to this hypothetical minimum-wage family.

Which leads me to another question or three. How much, exactly, did Feinberg’s dinner cost her? How much did she and her husband spend on wine? Why didn’t she wonder how she could live with herself after dropping what had to be a couple hundred bucks on a meal when she could have given that money to the poor and needy?

You know the answer to the last question, at least. Progressives live to control your life, never to moderate their own. If you could have stopped Feinberg, mid-rant, to ask her what right she had to lecture anyone in public in such an obnoxious fashion, she would have looked at you as if you had grown a pair of antenna-stalks. If you had asked her why Ryan’s bottles of wine angered her while her own dinner spending didn’t, she wouldn’t have paused for a moment of calm thought. You’d better believe she would have turned her wine-laden tirade on you.

If we can blame Paul Ryan for anything, it would be for the almost apologetic tone of his interview with TPM. He should have told him to pound sand — that he was at dinner with friends, that he was complying with all applicable laws, that he resented the implication that an expensive dinner is out of bounds for any American, and that he treated the half-drunk patron with more manners than she showed him. He was far nicer than any of us would have been, I’m sure, and it should shame TPM that they couldn’t even give him credit for that.

Instead, they wrote up the self-serving account of an arrogant and overaggressive woman whose skewed worldview and selfish morals happened to mesh perfectly with their own. In a way, I’m glad they’re championing Feinberg as a Hero of the Left. She is the perfect poster child for the spoiled and greedy progressives who want to run your lives so that they can continue to enjoy their expensive dinners free from a little twinge of conscience.

(I stole the style of the post title from Ace, but I don’t think he’ll mind.)

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

Tags: ,

18 Responses to “Left-Wing “Economist” Vanquishes Paul Ryan with Impeccable Logic and Liquor Breath, but Mostly with Liquor Breath”

  1. Sarah says:

    Love it Jimmie! I'm so tired of this kind of stuff!

  2. When Universes Collide | The Lonely Conservative says:

    [...] 9, 2011 By Lonely Conservative No comments yetWhen universes collide, we get stories like this, via Sundries Shack.Talking Points Memo has a story today of true heroism (via memeorandum). A brave left-wing [...]

  3. Optics Over Reality: Ryan’s “Winegate” says:

    [...] Jimmie Bise has more. Tags: Bistro Bis, Grand Cru, Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru, Joshua Green, Paul Ryan, [...]

  4. [...] are days I am immensely proud of my friends. Today is one of those days. Prompted by the story about which I wrote in this post, Ben Domenech posted a series of tweets that together are as eloquent a defense of the wonder that [...]

  5. daveinboca says:

    Joshua Green is the silliest hack on the Globe's crew of ink-stained wretches, and that's saying a lot! The Atlantic M is now officially a tabloid stupider than the National Inquirer, which did do us the favor of uncovering John [Haircut anyone?] Edwards and his crusading "Two Americas" class warfare rhetoric to be as dishonest and moronic as the man himself. And the Atlantic and Edwards are neck-and-neck in the hypocrisy sweepstakes…!

  6. TJ Parker says:

    Its still a valid story. Ryan accepted the wine from lobbyists or friends. He didn't even inquire of the cost, knowing that if it was coming from lobbyists he'd have to pay, or if from friends he'd have to pay if it cost more than $100. Those darn House ethics rules!

  7. Guest Post Ryan Paul: Freedom of Choice | Man Are We Screwed says:

    [...] whomever you want, wherever you want, to talk about whatever you want, to eat whatever you want, to drink whatever you [...]

  8. Barbara says:

    Classy. Ryan probably violated House ethics rules by allowing lobbyists to buy him a $350 bottle of wine, and your best defense (based on no evidence at all) is that the person making the allegation probably was drunk. Character assasination is always a rightie's fallback position. Except that the reporter contacted Ryan, and he admitted the story is true.

    It may seem like a small thing, but righties have similarly blown up the price of a Dem's haircut. And yeah, Sarah, we're all tired of this kind of stuff.

    • Jimmie says:

      You say “probably” but you have absolutely no proof for the assertion. Any character assassination in this story exists on the part of the “economist” who accosted Ryan and the TPM reporter who suggested that Ryan might have violated ethics rules. Well, and now you.

      However, the thrust of the TPM story, if I may use such violent rhetoric, is not that Ryan violated any rules but that he drank expensive wine while allegedly oppressing the poor and needy. It’s a silly story based on a silly premise that obscured the rank hypocrisy of the person who brought the story to TPM in the first place. But you didn’t quite see that, now did you?

  9. bld says:

    Jimmie: If you were to put aside your knee-jerk protectionism, you would be able to read and comment on the story intellectually. Rather than resorting to ad hominums, you should take and debate the story on its merits. Is it wrong/hypocritical for Ryan to endorse cutting the safety net of the poorest Americans, while sipping on $350 bottles of champagne? Rather than deflect (and attack the economist), defend Ryan if you agree with what he is doing. If you cannot, then its best not to comment on the story.

    • Jimmie says:

      Why would I respond intellectually to a story that has no intellectual merit?

      Paul Ryan, like the boozy “economist”, can spend his money on whatever the heck he wants. It belongs to him. Accusation #1 — gone.

      There is not a scrap of evidence the Ryan broke any ethics rules, or any other rules, for that matter. The TPM article admits that much explicitly after it dishonestly posits that he might have done so. Accusation #2 — gone.

      Paul Ryan’s plan does not do what you say it does. Any informed reading of his plan, or any informed reading of any of his explanations of his plan, prove that beyond reasonable question. Accusation #3 — gone.

      So what’s left? Left-wing puffery and outright lying. Am I’m supposed to elevate by rhetoric for that? No thanks.

  10. banshee says:

    I can't afford expensive wine these days, but there was a time I could. People like Feinberg should realize how lucky they are and STHU. Feinberg doesn't get that most people don't hate people who are better off. If Feinberg (who is apparently richer than I am) wants to buy dinner for me and my family, we'd be happy to take her up on it. An expensive bottle or two of wine is nothing to,well, whine about from where I sit. At least Ryan works for a living.

  11. banshee says:

    Oh, and it's "ad hominem," not "ad hominem". Reading can be a profitable activity.

  12. bld says:

    Banshee: You too just miss the point. And taking a page from Jimmie's playbook, I refuse to "elevate by rhetoric for that."

    Oh, and thanks for the spelling correction. I'm pretty embarrassed, but I will take some solace (however tiny) that you made a similar "typo" in trying to correct my "typo."

  13. Mikey says:

    Well, there is some hypocrisy there. It was a French wine.
    Shouldn't Mr. Free Markets Urber alles be avoiding that Socialist Country??

  14. CCRN says:

    Come talk with me Jimmie. Lets have a face to face debate. Until then, your a coward hiding behind your computer. Better yet, lets go on TV and debate the realities of your hero Paul Ryan and his proposals.

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 characters available