Liberal thinking in a cup of tea

We are a family of tea drinkers.  As dedicated tea drinkers, we like good tea, which usually means loose leaf tea.  Loose leaf tea, in turn, means special tea makers.  Our favorite is the Adagio Ingenuitea Teapot, which makes one perfect cup of tea at a time.  The only downside of the Ingenuitea maker is that, as you carry it from workspace to sink, a drop or two of tea will escape floorwards.  Since I take my tea black, this is not a problem.  Mr. Bookworm, however, likes a small — a very small — amount of sugar in his tea.  When his roving tea drops dry, the floor is marked by a slight tackiness, which is very obvious underfoot.

What does all this have to do with liberal thinking?  A lot, actually.

You see, Mr. Bookworm holds, as a matter of “scientific” theory, that the amount of sugar he uses in his tea is too small to leave any sticky spots should the tea drip on the floor.  The fact that I can show him the sticky spots on the kitchen floor is entirely irrelevant to him.  Since the sticky fact on the ground doesn’t mesh with the pure theory in his head, the sticky spot cannot exist.  At various times he asserts that I’m imagining it, that it comes from another source, or that I’m trying to gaslight him (that last is his little joke, by the way).

Mr. Bookworm’s thinking, of course, precisely reflects the Ivy League thinking that prevails in Washington.  Obama, and those who surround him, haven’t held real jobs, they haven’t started businesses, they haven’t deal with payrolls.  Likewise, they’ve never lived in a village that has 10,000 rockets aimed at it.  They’ve never spent time in the company of “boot on the ground” Islamists.  Instead, they consort only with the erudite, British-accented academic fifth column that drips constant antisemitic, anti-Israel poison in their ears.  They’ve never spent significant amounts of time in a socialist/communist country (or, worse, that country’s health care system).  Their sole contact with socialism comes from academic elites who are dedicated to the theory of Marxism, facts be damned.

And that’s always it, isn’t it?  Theory will invariably trump facts for the liberal.  Theory is a nice neat package, an NPR story with a beginning, middle, and predetermined end.  It has no icky facts, no unknown variables, no human equation, and no room for the possibility that the liberal’s theory might be wrong.  So just as I’m condemned to tip toe across a tacky kitchen floor, we Americans, in the age of Obamic Progressivism, are condemned to a flailing economy, weak national security, and creeping socialism, all because the Ivy Tower academics in government refuse to acknowledge that their exquisitely crafted theories might not function in the real world.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. says

    You’ve got your work cut out for you in order to de-brainwash your husband here. But I think you can do it. Keep up the work. Gan ba te!
    British-accented academic fifth column that drips constant antisemitic
    Now a days, they’re more Muslim and Black Church accented.
    You have often described yourself, Book, as a coward. While I might quibble over whether you fear physical danger more or less than other individuals, on the matter of moral courage, the courage that Mr. Book demonstrably shows he lacks, you are superior in all categories, Book. In my eyes, at least.
    That is worth more than you may realize, given how you have defined yourself and looked up to those that seemingly have in abundance what you yourself lack. Take a cross section of anybody with an over abundance of physical courage and the upstanding ones will always, always tell you that physical courage is dwarfed by moral courage. Life and death confrontations don’t last for very long. Often all a person does is rely upon their instincts and trust in them. But they did not earn those instincts, it was just an inheritance from their ancestors. Moral courage, however, lasts day in, day out, without let up. It is something particular to the individual.

  2. Danny Lemieux says

    Hmm, I believe that you’ve gotten this down to a “T”. Well done!
    Mr. Book’s comprehension of chemistry and physics also explains the how and why of how they can be so gullible for pseudo-science poppycock such as global warminism. People like him think in abstractions divorced from the harsh, physical realities of the world, one reason why they may be brilliant at spouting academic nonsense while being totally incapable of grasping basic practicalities such as tying their shoe laces or understanding the physics of hammering a nail into a wall.
    It doesn’t matter how little sugar he puts in his tea. The water distributes the sugar over a surface area. Once the water evaporates, the sugar is 100% (or so) concentrated and it only takes a one-molecule thick layer of sugar on your floor to contribute “stickiness”.

  3. says

    Danny, our comments were like a few seconds apart.
    Sometimes I think the Left are just making up how stupid and ignorant they are. You know, to fool me into a false sense of confidence and then ambush me with superior planning and wit.
    I keep expecting it. And it keeps never happening. Why is that, Danny?

  4. Charles Martel says

    But isn’t there some way, a government program perhaps, that the sugar molecules could be made to see that the water is exploiting them by going away (“evaporating”) and leading them to hold the bag, so to speak, whenever somebody walks on them?

    By shedding their false consciousness, which makes them complicit in the water’s shenanigans, the sugar molecules would add to Book’s happiness while simultaneously reinforcing and implementing solidarity with Mr. Book’s obliviousness.

  5. says

    I have the same problem.  My husband is a retired professor, a scientist, and he doesn’t believe the tiny, tiny amount of sugar in his coffee can cause a spot on the floor.  He thinks I am super vigilant to spot the spots. I suspect it has nothing to do with their political proclivity because mine used to be one of those liberal professors, but is older, wiser and retired and is now a conservative.  I think it has to do with knowing they will not be the ones to clean up the resulting mess.  We care, they don’t.

  6. Danny Lemieux says

    Then again, as a young man, I confess that I didn’t realize that I was leaving greyish-brown footprints in the bottom of my bathtub over time until I got married. Gee! Who knew?
    It was amazing what my then-new spouse could see that had been invisible to me all that time. I learned to see the world in a whole different light.

  7. suek says

    Could you switch him to a sugar substitute?  Would he notice?  I don’t think the substitutes get sticky…
    It’s like the difference between real coke and diet coke in the stickiness factor.

  8. MacG says

    Setup a science experiment.  On a clean surface put a few drops from his freshly made tea sugared to his liking and a few drops of yours, let dry. Test for stickyness.  Now this experiment must be set up after he sugars his tea and without knowledge of a pending test otherwise he may skew the results by subconsciously altering the amount of sugar. 

  9. Danny Lemieux says

    Nice try, MacG. Who are they going to believe…their egos or their own lyin’ eyes?
    Your experiment will obviously have been stacked…probably by Bush or Rove and their minions.

  10. says

    Your experiment will obviously have been stacked…probably by Bush or Rove and their minions.
    Global warming is caused by companies and is melting the sugar. Making it sticky. That’s what they will say, yes.

Leave a Reply