Ted Cruz

Should Ted Cruz Have Read From Dr. Seuss's Vile Anti-Japanese Work Rather Than Green Eggs & Ham?

|

Among the many silly reactions to Sen. Ted Cruz's mega-speech against Obamacare, the silliest one is found at Politico. As you may recall, the Texas Republican at some point read Green Eggs & Ham from the floor of the Senate as a way of saying hello to his young daughters.

Politico sought out some experts who assured Politico that Dr. Seuss, a.k.a. Theodor Geisel, would have hated Ted Cruz as a matter of principle.

"Not only would he be offended at the misuse of 'Green Eggs and Ham,' but he'd be offended at almost everything that Ted Cruz stands for, which is to remove the safety net from poor people, poor and vulnerable people, he's clearly more power hungry than he is compassionate and he's a bully," said Dr. Peter Dreier, a professor of politics at Occidental College….

"Ted Cruz is a Dr. Seuss character…he is this kind of cartoon character who sort of parodies his own behavior. You could imagine him as being in a Dr. Seuss book without really changing much about him, he's so outlandish," said Phil Nel, a Seuss scholar and professor of children's literature at Kansas State University.

"Seuss was a liberal Democrat and he would not have much patience for people like Mr. Cruz," Nel said.

So experts agree that Dr. Seuss would have thought Ted Cruz was a d-bag, that Seuss was "a liberal Democrat" and that, in truth, GE&H is all about trying something before rejecting it.

All true, all true. But as long as we're using the good doctor as a character witness, let's not forget Seuss's particularly nasty contributions to the war effort during World War II. As a good "liberal Democrat" and FDR fanboy, Seuss was particularly big on interning citizens of Japanese-American descent. And that he liked to draw them with buckteeth and round glasses—just like Tojo had!—even as he drew cartoons against other forms of racial prejudice (read Dr. Seuss Goes to War for more on the topic).

To his credit, Seuss apologized after the war for engaging in racist hysteria. Horton Hears a Who is widely read as an apology for his role in stoking anti-Japanese sentiments and his story about "the Sneetches" is taught in the Southern Poverty Law Center's "teaching tolerance" curriculum.

But about the only thing sillier than Ted Cruz reading to his kids during a nearly day-long political speech is Politico's invocation of "experts" to slag Cruz for same.

NEXT: Maryland School Official Says Trayvon Martin Case Shows That Hunting Children is Legal in Florida

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good article.

    Ron Paul 2012

    1. There still stands a large “Ron Paul 2012” sign at the side of Canada’s largest highway, the Macdonald?Cartier Freeway (Highway 401), just passed Kingston, Ontario east bound.

      I am tempted to pull over one day and spray paint edit it to “Rand Paul 2016”

      1. Use a roller on a good quality extending pole that won’t break.

      2. Does this mean Paul lost the nomination because he put too much of his efforts into trying to win the Canadian vote?

  2. Why is there a picture of Henry Waxman accompanying this article?

    1. His name is Master Splinter.

  3. If you want to read a good Dr. Seuss book check out Thidwick the Big Hearted Moose.

    1. My childhood favorite. I have in PDF now just for kicks.

      1. PM

        Please change your moniker’s email association to a website. It’s messing up Reasonable.

        Thx

        1. QUIT FUCKING COMPLAINING ABOUT REASONABLE NOT WORKING. IF PEOPLES EMAIL LINKS ARE FUCKING UP YOUR ADD-ON THAT’S YOUR PROBLEM NOT THEIRS.

          1. Yes, I third this response.

          2. Look, just because you assholes don’t prefer the convenience of a superior browser with a plugin designed for the site doesn’t mean you have to ruin it for the rest of us.

            1. If it’s so superior it should be able to handle e-mails links.

              Besides, Chrome’s lack of a Master Password makes it a nonstarter for me.

              1. Could someone explain the point of having an email in your handle?

                1. Could someone explain the point of having an email in your handle?

                  Sometimes it’s handy if you want to pass information to someone without it being absolutely public to shoot them an email. I’ve gotten a few “I’m going to be in your neck of the woods want to grab a beer” emails.

                2. So someone could sign you up for spam, duh.

              2. I recommend LastPass. Works on any major browser and smartphone.

              3. IT handles email links just fine.

                It’s gagging on the massive script that Reason’s staff decided to embed in the mail links.

              4. Which browser do you use? Opera and Chrome plugins are cross compatible now. Firefox (sadly) is not Reasonable compatible.

                You might want to try Comodo Dragon, based on the Chromium project with Google tracking specific code stripped out and a focus on security and privacy. As of March (v. 26.0.2.0) they have implemented a master password feature. The browser is fully Reasonable compatible.

            2. I use Chrome.

          3. Hugh

            Please note:

            Please

            and

            Thx

            Now note…

            FUCK YOU!

            I guess it’s too much to ask for people to voluntarily change to accommodate the fucked up add-on. Be a fucking dickhead, why don’t ya?

            1. And this is why there are no female libertarians.

            2. I guess it’s too much to ask for people to voluntarily change to accommodate the fucked up add-on.

              No, it’s not too much to ask. Which you did.

              But part of asking is that people get to say “no.”

              Whiny, passive-aggressive acting out also doesn’t help.

              1. Whiny, passive-aggressive acting out also doesn’t help.

                Simply responding in kind to Hugh.

            3. Not everyone uses reasonable. This is Hit and Run. Not a chat room.

              1. H N R IS THE WORST CHATROOM EVAR!

                Especially on weekends.

  4. jeezus, is everything political?

    1. Yes. This wing of the political animal believes it’s a valid engagement of the issues to make jokes about Big Bird, Binders Full of Women, Bottles of Water and Dr. Seuss.

      Remember next time they call us “childish”.

      1. It’s getting worse. On the morning radio, I heard someone refer to Cruz as banging his spoon on his high chair. So if you disagree with the mature adults who want to keep spending money we don’t have, you’re not just childish, you’re an infant.

        1. Democrats = Veruca Salt
          Republicans = Indulgent Father
          Libertarians = Willy Wonka

          1. Wrong, sir! Wrong! Under section 37B of the contract signed by him, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become null and void if – and you can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy: I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained, et cetera, et cetera… Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera… Memo bis punitor delicatum!

            It’s all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!

          2. +1 chipotle ad.

    2. I was just about to ask if all politics is this retarded.

  5. Seuss scholar and professor of children’s literature at Kansas State University

    1. NOTHING LEFT TO CUT.

    2. Would his position be more dignified or less dignified if it was at an Ivy?

    1. Fuck me, he teaches a course called Harry Potter’s Library

    2. Well, he’s certainly qualified to point out outlandishness and self-parodying behavior.

  6. For a wonderfully batshit article and equally looney-tunes comments, enjoy this WaPo piece about a spectral Jewish grandpa who nags his grandson about gun control and Miley Cyrus.

    1. Senile ghost?

    2. Oh man…

      “Okay, but what about the Second Amendment?”

      “Hoo-ha! This I’ve been waiting for. The Founding Fathers didn’t mean for everyone to have a gun. They wanted a militia.”

      “That’s a matter of interpretation, Grandpa.”

      “Not for me it isn’t. I play pinochle with some of the Fathers. They’re sick at what they see. Bang! Bang! No militia. People shooting up playgrounds, movie theaters, the Navy Yard. Ya think that’s what they wanted? They wanted guys with funny hats and muskets.”

      “Okay, but how do we get around the Second Amendment?”

      “Easy. Write that all this is terrorism. To fight terrorism, Americans will permit anything. The government can read your e-mails and listen to your phone calls and know where you go in the car and probably how long you take in the bathroom. That’s okay. But stop some schmuck with orange hair from buying an assault weapon, an AR something or other, and that’s a constitutional matter? Listen, who do you fear more ? the Taliban or the NRA? Which one has cost more lives since Sept. 11? This is what you should write.”

      “I can’t do that. Everyone would laugh. I’d never get on ‘Morning Joe.’?”

      cont…

      1. “This is bigger than some show. Listen! Pay attention. Start with that Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA. Whenever he’s on TV, have those special-effects geniuses in Hollywood make him look like a terrorist. Call him Mullah Wayne. Get the idea across. And when that happens, the courts will say, hoo-ha, we’ve got to reinterpret the Second Amendment. The justices, they’ve got their finger to the wind, too, believe you me.”

        “Grandpa, that’s crazy.”

        “That’s crazy? But all these shootings aren’t crazy? Dead little kids in Chicago, that’s not crazy? Think about it, boychick. Make your mother proud.”

        “How is she?”

        But with that, I heard the window open, felt a breeze and he was gone, leaving only an idea.

        First of all, gramps is a real dickface. He’ll pontificate on guns for ten minutes but won’t tell the guy how his mom is. Ass.

        Secondly, what the fuck? Is this article supposed to illustrate the venal and tyrannical nature of the gun grabbers? Because that’s what I got out of it. “Hey! Slap the terrorism sticker on it and forget about those silly civil liberties! Works every time.”

        1. I loved the bit about superimposing a fake beard onto Wayne LaPierre (“Wayne ibn-Heston al-LaPierre”). Nice to know racist Gramps is just one trip to the gun store away from shooting up a Sikh temple.

        2. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined.”

          -George Washington

          Not sure which founding fathers of what country dead, senile grandpa is talking to.

          1. Since it’s the Washington Post, grandpa probably thinks Eugene Debs and Walter Duranty are founding fathers.

      2. That’s okay. But stop some schmuck with orange hair from buying an assault weapon, an AR something or other, and that’s a constitutional matter?

        Is it the schmuckiness or the orange hair that especially removes this person’s ability to buy an AR something or other?

      3. The Founding Fathers didn’t mean for everyone to have a gun. They wanted a militia.

        I’m guessing that Richard Cohen’s head would explode if it were explained to him that what the Founding Fathers meant by the word “militia” was basically “everyone having a gun.”

  7. Speaking of Cruz, this was great:

    Who else does Ted Cruz’s triumph help?

    In the last hour, even as he said he grew “weary” as his time arguing against ObamaCare was coming to a close, he found himself in a debate with the able and smart Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin on the Congress’s generous health-care plan.

    Durbin complained that Cruz wanted to deny health care to the uninsured; did he not, Durbin asked, enjoy the benefits of the generous congressional health-care package himself?

    Cruz said he wouldn’t answer Durbin until Durbin first replied to three questions Cruz had posed. Durbin, with an “a-ha” gesture, responded by saying it was clear Cruz was simply refusing to answer his embarrassing question.

    He’d walked into Cruz’s trap. For then Cruz said, no, Senator, I’m eligible for the congressional plan ? but I’m not enrolled in it.
    Durbin thought he had Cruz cornered by bringing up his reliance on the absurdly generous health package for Congress. But since Cruz doesn’t rely on it, Durbin humiliated himself in what was supposed to be his gotcha moment.

    Despite his marathon of speaking and standing and arguing, after nearly a day on his feet, Cruz ? there is no other term for it ? squashed Durbin like a bug.

    Didn’t the Dickster try the same tactic during Rand Paul’s filibuster?

    1. That’s the thing about Cruz: he’s actually a capable advocate. He has carved up some witnesses, prosecutor-cross-examination style.

      And his Congressional opponents, for the most part, have gotten fat and lazy in their cushy little bubbles. As Durbin demonstrated.

      1. Ted Cruz, unlike Barack Obama, was a successful lawyer.

    2. So basically Durbin is an idiot who never learns from his mistakes.
      Shocking.

      1. Durbin is a lawyer who apparently forgot that a lawyer should avoid asking questions which he doesn’t know the answers to.

        1. Durbin is not really very bright. The reasons he got where he is…He has done EVERYTHING the party has asked him, raises money and puts people on the street to help other candidates, and will make sure Granny’s SS check problems are cleared up. He is of average intelligence, small wit and fairly high ruthlessness.

    3. You lost me at “able and smart Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin”

    4. For then Cruz said, no, Senator, I’m eligible for the congressional plan ? but I’m not enrolled in it.

      I think the bigger story here is “DC Politician turns out to not be a hypocrite.”

  8. I thought his reading the book was charming. Beats reading from the phone book.

    1. I was hoping for a reading from Fanny Hill.

  9. …he’d be offended at almost everything that Ted Cruz stands for, which is to remove the safety net from poor people

    By not subjecting them to fines if they fail to pay for the health insurance they already can’t afford? Seems legit.

  10. Dr Seuss produced racist propaganda during the war, felt terrible about it later and did his best to make amends. Nick, what’s your point in going into all that?

    1. If you’re going to invoke Dr. Seuss like a magical artifact that defeats Ted Cruz, you may want to ensure your artifact isn’t tarnished.

      1. “Magical artifact”? It looks like they pointed out that the man would not have appreciated Cruz using his work like that. It’s nowhere near as relevant as pointing out that the book he read undermined Cruz’s position but I don’t detect any hagiography. Ironically, Nick’s tale of Dr Seuss’s journey through sin to redemption makes Dr Seuss more saint-like.

        1. So opposing ObamaCare means your a racist, how exactly?

          1. Did you mean to reply to someone else?

        2. using his work like that

          Wut? He was reading it to pass time, not to support an argument.

          1. He wasn’t reading it while waiting for the train.

            1. And? What do you make of filibustering Senators reading the phonebook?

              1. I think it’s silly but I think it’s sillier that you would ask me.

            2. He wasn’t reading it while waiting for the train.

              Or a bus to come, or a plane.

          2. According to NPR (yeah, I know…) he was reading it as a bedtime story to his kids, hoping they’d be watching on c-span. Also, filler.

        3. Reading to his daughter at bedtime? Im pretty sure that is EXACTLY what Dr Seuss wanted Cruz to do with the story.

          1. It also highlights a problem with progressives.

            Conservatives are fine with reading from the works of liberals, because they can separate the work from the politics.

            Progressives cant separate. They cant eat at Domino’s or Chik-fil-a because of who the owners donate to. They cant shop at Whole Foods. Etc, etc.

            1. They cant shop at Whole Foods. Etc, etc.

              So, they’re also all hypocrites.

              1. Yes, that too.

                But I try to avoid criticizing hypocrites, because they are generally right 1/2 the time, which is better than consistently wrong.

                1. Sort of by definition. Either what they’re saying or what they’re doing has to be right.

                  1. Either what they’re saying or what they’re doing has to be right.

                    Exactly.

            2. They cant eat at Domino’s or Chik-fil-a because of who the owners donate to.

              Lol. I have conservative coworkers who assume I only do my DIY shopping at Home Depot because they support the gays, and refuse to set foot in a Home Depot because they support the gays. We couldn’t go to Disneyland for a while as kids because Focus on the family was cranky about them.

              The list of companies that conservative Christian groups have boycotted or buycotted is quite long, so I don’t think your point is really accurate.

              1. I was going to point out the Disneyland boycott as a counterpoint, but it was mostly ineffective.

                Then again, so is the progressive boycott of Whole Foods.

                1. I was going to point out the Disneyland boycott as a counterpoint, but it was mostly ineffective.

                  The one I find really weird is Proctor and Gamble, beyond the fact that they sell an extremely wide variety of products, the complaint has shifted over the years from being aligned with Satan (wtf, seriously?) to being overly liberal about teh gehz. It was impossible for people to keep track of the products they were avoiding, but railing against P&G was a constant in the newsletters my parents used to get.

            3. robc, I choose not to eat at CFA because the owner donates to organizations which actively try to harm me and those like me.

              Domino’s really isn’t an issue for me because I don’t like their product.

              And I love me some whole foods, even though it means putting up with smug, entitled hippies.

              1. Yes, but that means you’ve effectively politicized a chicken sandwich. And I feel bad for you that you make that choice.

                1. Yes, but that means you’ve effectively politicized a chicken sandwich. And I feel bad for you that you make that choice.

                  Wouldn’t the owner being very vocal in his politics and donating a portion of the proceeds of those chicken sandwiches to causes that directly harm Tonio’s legal standing be the politicization of the sandwich?

                  1. Wouldn’t the owner being very vocal in his politics and donating a portion of the proceeds of those chicken sandwiches to causes that directly harm Tonio’s legal standing be the politicization of the sandwich?

                    Is he vocal in his politics?

                    Ted Turner is vocal. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are vocal. In comparison, Truett Cathy is pretty low key.

                2. ‘It’s not a pizza until it comes out of the oven’

                  ‘No! It’s a pizza as soon as your hands touch the dough’

                3. Yes, but that means you’ve effectively politicized a chicken sandwich.’

                  Uh, no. At least not in my worldview. You’re entitled to your own beliefs.

              2. Do you also choose not to eat at every organization whose owner donates to pro-big-government causes?

                They are also actively trying to harm you.

                1. The reason I avoid CfA is that they opened up a shop right next door to where I work and the coworkers who started eating there regularly put on 20-40 pounds in a very short period of time. The percentage of any purchase there that goes to donations to groups I dislike is negligible and if I’m really in a hurry I’ll grab food there.

                  I generally don’t shop my politics because I think it often brings more attention and more money to the target companies (the organized buycott of CfA brought them quite a bit of money and snarled the fuck out of our shared parking lot*) and because it’s very hard to actively trace where money is really going from one purchase to the next.

                  That said, I don’t think it’s crazy when people do want to put in the effort. They work hard for their money and are free to not exchange goods with people who will spend it on causes they dislike.

                  *A special fuck you to whoever was shouting “pro family” slogans into a bullhorn outside my office window for the entirety of my work day that Wednesday.

                2. My choices are very much my own, robc. But I do appreciate your interest.

        4. pointing out that the book he read undermined Cruz’s position

          How so? That we should try things before we decide that we don’t like them?

          Is that how you go through life, never having the least bit of foresight into the consequences of your actions?

          Would you like a bite of this shit sandwich?

          1. No. You just told me it was a shit sandwich.

    2. Nick’s just playing their little game. Everybody does it to some extent, but progs make it one of their specialties, probably due to their reliance on identity politics. See, you can’t quote MLK, Orwell, or apparently even read a Seuss book to your kids, without the proper liberal bona fides. But Jesus was a progressive, and Ronald Reagan would be drummed out of today’s conservative movement for being too moderate.

    3. Because, anyone with an IQ that hits triple digits should know better than to cite the author of childrens’ books as some sort of unquestionable moral authority on healthcare policy. Giesel was as capable (largely more so) of making vast errors in logic or judgeent as anyone.

  11. a Seuss scholar and professor of children’s literature at Kansas State University.

    Plainly a man of unimpeachable political acumen.

  12. These people are so sick. They cannot see a children’s book and not think about politics. What a horrible way to live life.

    1. Well, he was reading it on the senate floor.

      I still fail to see the political connotations though.

      1. So do I. He read a children’s book. That is the kind of things people do when filibustering. It takes a pretty sick mind to see that and think “but what about the politics of the author of that book?”.

    2. Well, when politics is everything, everything is politics, isn’t it?

      I am reminded, though, of how I liked The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins as a kid, and how it makes me slightly uncomfortable now. The artwork is great, but the idea that the King can cut off your head because you don’t take off your hat for him goes pretty much unexamined. The plea for leniency for Bartholomew is that he’s really trying to take off his hat, not that the king is a monster.

      Bartholomew and the Oobleck sounds a little better in pointing out the limits of a king’s power and the problems of unintended consequences, though.

      1. You might like Yertle the Turtle, too.

        1. The finest work on the subject of turtle stacking ever written.

      2. Bartholomew and the Oobleck terrified me.

  13. Hand
    Hand
    Fingers
    Thumb

    One thumb
    One thumb
    Drumming on a drum.

    One hand
    Two hands
    Drumming on a drum.

    Dum ditty
    Dum ditty
    Dum dum dum.

    1. Rings on fingers
      Rings on thumbs
      Dum ditty dum ditty dum dum dum

    2. Imagine that we had no nose.
      Where would our glasses sit?
      Just think of it!

      I hate reading Seuss aloud.

      1. The whole point is to read it aloud.

        1. I’m aware.

  14. Phil Nel, a Seuss scholar and professor of children’s literature at Kansas State University

    This is a real fucking credential?

    the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “teaching tolerance” curriculum.

    And this is a real fucking thing?

    Sigh… if only I had a nice bottle of scotch in my desk drawer…

    1. I am a fan of Dr. Who and every once in a while, on BBC America I see an interview with someone listed as a “Dr. Who Historian”.

      I am as big a Whovian as they come – but come on, really? A Dr. Who Historian?

      If there can be Dr. Who Historians there can be Seuss Scholars.

    2. Yes it is. True story. One of my roommates my senior year was finishing his English degree and decided that he was going to be a teacher. So it was taking all of the Ed courses his last year. He had already gotten his English BA. One of the classes was Children’s Lit. It was reading Children’s lit and making sure the students were familiar with the options available for students and understood and knew the lit.

      The other students in the class spent the whole semester whining about how it involved reading 800 pages. It was children’s lit. It was 800 pages of Green Eggs and Ham and The Places You Will Go. That was, apparently, too much for the typical Ed major to stomach.

      1. Hmm, times must have changed. When I majored in English – this was in the 1990’s – I had to read Chaucer, Shakespeare, Bede, as well as more modern fare like Jack Kerouac, and Phillip Roth.

        Children’s literature? Children’s literature was read by two majors : Education Majors and people pursuing a degree in Library and Information Science.

        1. It wasn’t part of his English degree. He already had that and had spent four years reading 800 or more pages a semester of the kind of stuff you describe. This was for his ED certificate. It wasn’t an English class. It was an education class.

          1. OK, I guess I misunderstood what you meant by ED – what came to my mind was “English Degree” not “Education Degree”.

            Yes, there is an old saying but very true “Those who can, do; those who can’t teach.” This is yet one more reason why people should home school their kids if they can manage it at all. If you don’t have the time see if their grandparents can. Modern public schools are the WORST option.

            1. OK, I guess I misunderstood what you meant by ED

              It’s ok, I thought he was talking about erectile dysfunction.

            2. They really are. It is amazing how incompetent many public school teachers are. There was a study that came out a few weeks ago that said a child having a Teach for America teacher for one year in math gives the same benefit as taking two years of math from an average public school teacher or something close to that.

              Understand Teach for America is just a bunch of upper middle class kids getting their loans paid off in exchange for a few years. They are smart and good students but they are not geniuses or any more remarkable than most other professionals with a college degree. Yet, straight out of college with no teaching experience blow the typical public school teacher away.

              The success of home schooled children shows that too. Average Americans can, with a little bit of time and effort, give their kids what amounts to an elite primary education. But the public schools can’t seem to do that despite ever more lavish funding.

      2. It may be 800 pages with only 10 words on each page, but each page is going to have a picture. That’s just too much to analyze.

      3. Dang.

        The last class I took in college was an accelerated summer class on ancient myths.

        We read theogony, works and days, iliad, odyssey, the aeniad, and a bunch of articles in 6 weeks. There was a ton of writing to be done as well. A couple people had minor complaints, but there wasn’t a general feeling that it was too much work.

    3. For the record: I have a bottle of Blanton’s in mine.

  15. Politics is really fucking stupid you guys.

  16. “Not only would he be offended at the misuse of ‘Green Eggs and Ham,’ but he’d be offended at almost everything that Ted Cruz stands for, which is to remove the safety net from poor people, poor and vulnerable people, he’s clearly more power hungry than he is compassionate and he’s a bully,”

    That is some weapons-grade derp, that is!

    1. , he’s clearly more power hungry than he is compassionate and he’s a bully,”

      God damn those fucking libertarian-leaning republicans and their propensity to impose liberty on us!

      /tony

      1. By not wanting to steal from the rich to give to the poor, he’s stealing from the poor and giving to the rich!

    2. this is a simple test. You either read that and think “yes. 1000 times yes. i will talk about this with my friends tomorrow”

      or you think “what an a-hole” as you switch back to the game.

  17. OMG! Correction. Cruz reading Seuss just proves that Cruz is an even bigger racist than we already thought.

    News at 11.

    /progderp

    1. What have you done?

      Now there are going to be insufferable posts on Facebook about how he has both misappropriated Dr. Seuss AND is a racist for referencing Seuss.

      1. I thought he was already racist since he’s a republican. Now I’m confused.

        1. I thought he was a racist because he’s a white Hispanic

          1. That’s like double hatred for blacks right there.

          2. Canadian white Hispanic. Also know as Teh Devil.

            1. The Off-white devil, even.

      2. This Is What Progressives Actually Believe

      3. The best part will be when they start arguing with eachother over which one makes better spin, as if entirely oblivious to the fact that they are doing in in public.

        1. The facts must fit the narrative is not a joke. It is how they actually operate. It doesn’t bother them to argue such in public because it would never occur to them that anyone would doubt the “facts” once the hive has determined what they are.

          1. No, they actually think there are no conservatives hooked up to the internet listening ot their arguments.

            The problem for progressives is that they live in glass houses, but they are so insular that they actually believe that nobody is paying attention to what they say to eachother. The never read any conservative websites, so it never occurs to them that there are conservatives reading progressive websites.

  18. So Dr. Suess would have hated Cruz because Cruz is a hispanic born in Canada. Or something.

    1) Good to know
    2) Not really
    3) Who gives a fuck what someone who’s dead might have thought about someone reading their book?

    Fuck these college perfessers have WAY too much time to ocme up with derp, don’t they?

    Now STFU and fight against letting the grad asistants join your union, you fucktarded, ivory-towered commies.

    1. But my reaction included all three of the aforementioned responses, although #1 was sarcastic in my head.

      1. I respect that you are a multifaceted and comples being, anon.

        *salutes*

  19. Thank you, Nick for bringing this up. I love to show those drawings to smug liberals and watch them squirm.

  20. “Not only would he be offended at the misuse of ‘Green Eggs and Ham,’ but he’d be offended at almost everything that Ted Cruz stands for, which is to remove the safety net from poor people, poor and vulnerable people, he’s clearly more power hungry than he is compassionate and he’s a bully,” said Dr. Peter Dreier, a professor of politics at Occidental College..

    Let’s see, you most likely have a PhD in political science or a related field, yet you reveal yourself to, a) not have the faintest notion about the nature of power, b) are a simpleton about the impact of policy, and c) you can’t really express yourself in any way but the most trite banalities that would have embarrassed anyone in your position a mere generation ago. You are a datum point for the failure of our society to live up to a respectable standard.

    1. So this is why we can’t have nice things? STOOPID PERFESSERS!!!

      *shakes fist*

  21. Honestly, I generally think Dr. Seuss, while amusing for children, has been one of the more intellectually destructive influences in modern literature. As far as I can tell, it’s what gave rise to the entire “everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten” mentality.

    1. Is the “everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten” mentality really prevalent? Are there really people who adhere to that statement on an intellectual basis? I always thought that it only applied to interpersonal interactions (golden rule, don’t be a bully, etc.) not scholarly pursuits.

      Seuss is OK, I’m not a great fan. But I don’t think it’s in any way intellectually destructive.

      1. “Is the “everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten” mentality really prevalent?”

        Well, let me ask you, how many otherwise educated adults do you know who support the War on Drugs because “drugs are bad”? How many do you know who support confiscatory tax rates because “the rich should share”. How many otherwise educated adults do you know who uncritically accepted the notion that “in a democracy the government is just things we do together”? How many do you know who support same sex marriage because “we should be nice to gay people”? How many do you know who oppose it because “gay sex is bad”? How many educated adults do you know who believed that “even if global waring isn’t true, combating it would be a good thing”?

        The thing is, the basis of the “everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten” mentality is the intentional ignoring of relevant complexity. And that sort of thinking is rife in Dr. Seuss books.

  22. “Is the “everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten” mentality really prevalent?”

    Well, let me ask you, how many otherwise educated adults do you know who support the War on Drugs because “drugs are bad”? How many do you know who support confiscatory tax rates because “the rich should share”. How many otherwise educated adults do you know who uncritically accepted the notion that “in a democracy the government is just things we do together”? How many do you know who support same sex marriage because “we should be nice to gay people”? How many do you know who oppose it because “gay sex is bad”? How many educated adults do you know who believed that “even if global waring isn’t true, combating it would be a good thing”?

    The thing is, the basis of the “everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten” mentality is the intentional ignoring of relevant complexity. And that sort of thinking is rife in Dr. Seuss books.

  23. Could you provide some citations for this “intentional ignoring of relevant complexity” that is rife in Dr Seuss books? I have three kids so I’ve read a fair share recently and I can’t for the life of me figure out what you’re going on about.

  24. The virtue of verse (whether written for children or adults) is that it can resonate in different ways for different people, depending on their experiences in life. That being said, I think this latest Ted Cruz/Green Eggs and Ham parody mostly pokes fun at Cruz’s sanctimony:
    http://hottincat.wordpress.com…..gs-parody/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.