Attention. Saluting Ivanka.

I’m sorry, but the real issue is not where will these two vile emblems of Vicious America land when they escape their luxurious nest for another luxurious nest that looks and feels exactly like the last one. I just don’t understand how the New York Times can use this a puff piece when the rest of us cannot even say: “Vile emblems.”

Which would not be civil. To be civil, we must stand at military attention before Ivanka exactly like the soldier in the photo the New York Times used, not as commentary, not as puff covering puff, but as tongue-in-cheek insouciance, like the publication being smug, and not even listening to itself as if indifference isn’t careless. These people are dangerous. They are not frivolous. Ivanka will not be buying anything at the general store.

“Two vile emblems” will get me thrown out onto the street again, but I just don’t care anymore. The ubiquitous image of who is truly uncivil is not the stereotype of the 400 pound man sitting on his couch. The people who are uncivil and arrogant are the people presented in this article. They are beneath contempt. The media-constructed image of the happy little family is as vile as they are.

The word vile is defined by the word heinous. It is not uncivil. It is accurate. The real issue that is far more vile, and far more heinous, is called income inequality.

Get real. Gossip is cruel. To the reader.

Last night, we each had a banana for dinner. I am not kidding. Income inequality is obscene.

And hurtful.

The religious concept of Tzadei-Dalet-Qof, is both ancient and instructive. Without it, contemporary culture would not have the concept of justice.

Sometimes the Kushners walk the entire block to church. Ivanka will tell you that it’s good for the environment (versus the limo).

When Ivanka goes to prison, there will be at least some justice in the world.

Tim Barrus

Tim Barrus Blog

Posts tagged with Media-criticism

Tim Barrus, New York Times