It certainly doesn’t justify the subsequent racial aspersions with which she closes the first post.
I believe Mr. Katz is objecting to my use of the term “white, educated elites” and providing a link to an article applying the term to Maggie Gallagher.
I’ll admit it is more polite to refer to people directly by name instead of alluding to them by their race, educational and economic characteristics. Moreover, the fact one is white, educated and elite is irrelevant to whether or not one may form political opinions, write articles and advocate for a position. For that reason, it is pointless to refer to these features.
But there is one question I would like to ask:
Was Ms. Gallagher casting a racial, educational or economic aspersion when she coined this term and applied it to unnamed advocates of same sex marriage?
Hey ya’ll, I think there is a burp in the HTML for this post, since the rest of the alas page si all italics now, and the whole thing ends in the middle of a sentence… :)
Barry fixed it. Thanks for mentioning it.
Is being a member of the white, educated, elite a bad thing according to Katz? It sounds more to me like the author was calling Gallagher and other affluent whites on their arrogance and racism, and that’s fair. Certainly I’ve seen conservatives say the same thing, using the same words.
FWIW, I have yet to hear a Harvard-educated trust fund WASP complain of oppression.
Oh… I bet you could find one if you looked!