Presumption:
1. Behavior or attitude that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery.
1. Behavior or attitude that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery.
2. The act of presuming or accepting as true.
As taken from www.TheFreedictionary.com.
"Good sense [must be] the most equally distributed of all things in the world! For, everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it, that even those most difficult to please in all other matters, never desire more of it than they already possess."~ Rene Descartes
I learned less about sales during my time as a salesman than I did during the all the years prior and hence.
I have a wild infatuation with radical right-wing pundits, particularly on the radio. And let there be no mistake about it: talk radio is the right-wing's domain. Have you ever heard a liberal radio-host? I think I've heard one or two: awful. I don't even remember their names. Uninteresting radio, to say the least. Which is weird because even though NEWSPAPERS are clearly the liberals' area of talent, I can't say that liberalism is not suited for the spoken word. Many of the brightest and most entertaining standup comedians have an obvious left-wing slant. Come to think of it, left wing is the ONLY political slant I've heard in standup comedy (no offence Dennis Miller, but your post-Monday Night Football career hardly qualifies).
Before I continue on to my point I fear I have given away my now rarely-spake political position as a largely left-wing voter, by virtue of my superb written eloquence. To demonstrate what can be construed as a bias of any kind is an immediate weakening of any commuque`, especially when your audience may contain members of an opposite bias. You want to get as close as you can to taken seriously by Rush Limbaugh when calling in to disagreeing with one of his statements? Begin by saying you're a conservative catholic voter who has agreed with everything Rush Limbaugh says, except for a few minor points on today's show. Nothing makes you seem more intelligent than a perceived share in one's bias. Which brings me back to my definition of presumption.
I rather like that the first two definitions of presumption on most online dictionaries I've visited are basically what you see above. These two definitions are as seemingly unrelated as any single word's multiple meanings can be, but yet there's a certain life-blood that's shared by those who presume things to be true, and the very arrogant.
Back during college, when I was more out-spake about my political views, I wrote a somewhat scathing article for the LaSalle Collegian about right wing radio talk show host Laura Ingram. I won't bore you with the details but I'll give you the jist. It was post 9-11, and just around the time the war in Iraq was getting started. Then-president Bush's approval rating was doing okay, I guess as high as it was ever gonna go. However, one sub-category where his approval rating was at an all time low was with residents of New York City. On Laura Ingram's show, she did a (weekly?) segment called, "What's Wrong With Them!". The title of this segment alone tells you more than enough about her general levels of presumption. On that afternoon's segment she dedicated her "What's Wrong with Them!" segment to New York City, in response to the city's low approval of President Bush's post 9-11 policies. In this segment she berated the city--in third person and with some remarkable degree of attitude, considering that they comprise the bulk of her listener ratings--for not having their heads screwed on properly.
The stunning amount of presumption for Laura Ingram to assume that she is a better judge of post 9-11 policy than the entire city of New York is emblematic of the high level of entertainment I get from listening to right wing radio. And, with the exception of Ingram herself, who is otherwise very un-entertaining and uninformative across the board, my admiration for right wing radio is genuine--not ironic like those who love watching the first round of American Idol because people look stupid and make fools out of themselves. If you've never had the pleasure of getting at least a half hour dose of Rush or Sean Hennady, you're missing out on a remarkable display of salesmanship based on the very pre-supposed notions that make any crazy person more genuine than the un-medicated. Especially Rush. Oh my, is it a thing of beauty.
Just to put my nail in the Laura Ingram coffin, I would like to once and for all put some perspective on what makes right wing punditry so amazing:
Laura Ingram, I can only assume that you know better than the entire city of New York because... you're more.. educated (?). Okay, let's go with education. But what about the 'liberal conspiracy in the world of academia'? The entire educational spectrum is certainly comprised of people who are... educated. You know who else is often highly educated? Published writers. If schools, universities and the print media are filling up with the liberal elite, it can't be education that makes someone a better American. So what gave you the wisdom, Laura? Why did you get to tell the actual immediate victims of 9-11 that they were foolhardy in their response to the president?
I'll tell you why, Laura... It's because YOU'RE The President!
God made you the president when he invented the AM frequency!
All those voters in big cities who usually vote liberal, they don't know as much as you because they don't listen to God as often. And they don't hear voices in their Pepsi screaming about gay fascism and the Whole Foods conspiracy. Congratulations, Laura, you've got a cunt where your throat should be and 5.5 million listeners who wouldn't want it any other way! FUCK YEA!
urine
As taken from www.TheFreedictionary.com.
"Good sense [must be] the most equally distributed of all things in the world! For, everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it, that even those most difficult to please in all other matters, never desire more of it than they already possess."~ Rene Descartes
I learned less about sales during my time as a salesman than I did during the all the years prior and hence.
I have a wild infatuation with radical right-wing pundits, particularly on the radio. And let there be no mistake about it: talk radio is the right-wing's domain. Have you ever heard a liberal radio-host? I think I've heard one or two: awful. I don't even remember their names. Uninteresting radio, to say the least. Which is weird because even though NEWSPAPERS are clearly the liberals' area of talent, I can't say that liberalism is not suited for the spoken word. Many of the brightest and most entertaining standup comedians have an obvious left-wing slant. Come to think of it, left wing is the ONLY political slant I've heard in standup comedy (no offence Dennis Miller, but your post-Monday Night Football career hardly qualifies).
Before I continue on to my point I fear I have given away my now rarely-spake political position as a largely left-wing voter, by virtue of my superb written eloquence. To demonstrate what can be construed as a bias of any kind is an immediate weakening of any commuque`, especially when your audience may contain members of an opposite bias. You want to get as close as you can to taken seriously by Rush Limbaugh when calling in to disagreeing with one of his statements? Begin by saying you're a conservative catholic voter who has agreed with everything Rush Limbaugh says, except for a few minor points on today's show. Nothing makes you seem more intelligent than a perceived share in one's bias. Which brings me back to my definition of presumption.
I rather like that the first two definitions of presumption on most online dictionaries I've visited are basically what you see above. These two definitions are as seemingly unrelated as any single word's multiple meanings can be, but yet there's a certain life-blood that's shared by those who presume things to be true, and the very arrogant.
Back during college, when I was more out-spake about my political views, I wrote a somewhat scathing article for the LaSalle Collegian about right wing radio talk show host Laura Ingram. I won't bore you with the details but I'll give you the jist. It was post 9-11, and just around the time the war in Iraq was getting started. Then-president Bush's approval rating was doing okay, I guess as high as it was ever gonna go. However, one sub-category where his approval rating was at an all time low was with residents of New York City. On Laura Ingram's show, she did a (weekly?) segment called, "What's Wrong With Them!". The title of this segment alone tells you more than enough about her general levels of presumption. On that afternoon's segment she dedicated her "What's Wrong with Them!" segment to New York City, in response to the city's low approval of President Bush's post 9-11 policies. In this segment she berated the city--in third person and with some remarkable degree of attitude, considering that they comprise the bulk of her listener ratings--for not having their heads screwed on properly.
The stunning amount of presumption for Laura Ingram to assume that she is a better judge of post 9-11 policy than the entire city of New York is emblematic of the high level of entertainment I get from listening to right wing radio. And, with the exception of Ingram herself, who is otherwise very un-entertaining and uninformative across the board, my admiration for right wing radio is genuine--not ironic like those who love watching the first round of American Idol because people look stupid and make fools out of themselves. If you've never had the pleasure of getting at least a half hour dose of Rush or Sean Hennady, you're missing out on a remarkable display of salesmanship based on the very pre-supposed notions that make any crazy person more genuine than the un-medicated. Especially Rush. Oh my, is it a thing of beauty.
Just to put my nail in the Laura Ingram coffin, I would like to once and for all put some perspective on what makes right wing punditry so amazing:
Laura Ingram, I can only assume that you know better than the entire city of New York because... you're more.. educated (?). Okay, let's go with education. But what about the 'liberal conspiracy in the world of academia'? The entire educational spectrum is certainly comprised of people who are... educated. You know who else is often highly educated? Published writers. If schools, universities and the print media are filling up with the liberal elite, it can't be education that makes someone a better American. So what gave you the wisdom, Laura? Why did you get to tell the actual immediate victims of 9-11 that they were foolhardy in their response to the president?
I'll tell you why, Laura... It's because YOU'RE The President!
God made you the president when he invented the AM frequency!
All those voters in big cities who usually vote liberal, they don't know as much as you because they don't listen to God as often. And they don't hear voices in their Pepsi screaming about gay fascism and the Whole Foods conspiracy. Congratulations, Laura, you've got a cunt where your throat should be and 5.5 million listeners who wouldn't want it any other way! FUCK YEA!
urine
Comments
But you always have had a penchant for arrogance whether it be Woody Allen, Guy Ritchie or Rob Van Dam.
I think the presumption of intelligence comes from the general conservative belief of utilitarianism; that what's perceived good for most US citizens (be it "presumptive wars" or low taxes for businesses leading to a strengthened economy) is justified no matter how badly it disenfranchises others.
What were they thinking!?