I agree with you that it is a weak argument of Paul’s to ask why Mike Rowe (Works ™) doesn’t care about what Paul cares about. It sounds kind of lame to me too. But he was trying to be provocative – and it worked, in its way. I doubt The Jacboin has ever had quite so many hits since Mike’s response and ensuing reddit conversation.

But I feel you’re being more than a little naive in suggesting Rowe’s position is one of non-interventionism or individual decisions. He is on the payroll of companies like Wal Mart and Caterpillar that have huge lobbying efforts. Each of them have used their millions to rewrite federal and state legislation is ways that benefit giant multi-national corporations at the expense of the individual workers and small businesses. Of course his public persona is “simple information” and bromides like “work is good” — PR is his business. Meanwhile, the people writing his checks quietly make the massive changes in world you claim to be worried about.

Does it not strike you that Ari Paul, a person who I am sure would claim to be against prejudice or discrimination of any kind, refers to a whole group of people as “the working CLASS,” who seem to need public housing and other benefits provided to them by the state in order to survive? I don’t get the impression that he includes himself in that “class”; what “class” does he belong to? The “managing class”? The “ruling class”? Or maybe the “party class”? Remember, everyone is equal; but some are more equal than others. (George Orwell)

Jeanine,
Mike Rowe’s rebuttal of this piece is absolutely nothing if not fair and measured. I believe the problem here (in your mind) is that someone corrected one of the “liberal elite” and pointed out that they were wrong.
This gentle fisking of the article that specifically called out false faults of Mike Rowe by some socialist wag is nothing but well mannered and well spoken and polite discourse.
You are a small child angry because someone more intelligent and more reasonable simply proved someone you identify with, someone in your clique, to be false on many levels.

Pretty much my own thoughts. enrian!

Mike answered Mr. Paul’s editorial in much the way I would expect he might in person (given what I have seen, read, and heard from him). In my opinion, this not only makes it an insightful read, but also an honest one, instead of the usual cowardice of anonymous “drive-by nastiness.” Such comments have become so commonplace as to be acceptable by many (the sad state of this country… smh).
Please consider this: the editorial to which he was responding is no better than a lengthy “zone of name-calling and drive-by nastiness” – a comment on Mike’s website, and on him personally – albeit posted conveniently elsewhere, and not anonymously.

I also disagree with you Jeanine. Not everyone believes “well-known public figures” should ignore people you seem to consider either unworthy of attention (Mr. Paul) or too important to treat lightly (Dr. Boushey.)

I appreciate the humor and civility of Mr. Rowe’s response and your calling him a bully makes you sound small and mean.

You’re right – I don’t spend a lot of time reading comments on websites anymore. I used to. I got my first email address and joined Usenet groups in 1989. I posted my first question to Mike Rowe in the Dirty Jobs Mud Room board way back in 2007 (so, maybe you’re a bit off-base about my lack of research?) But whatever. Lately, I find web comments in general to be kind of an ugly zone of name-calling and drive-by nastiness.

And I guess that’s my main point. Mike’s post wasn’t an anonymous comment on a web board (where nastiness is expected) — it was authored primary content by a well-known public figure on the website of his 501c3 non-profit organization. An organization that has donors, a board, and a mission that is fundamentally worthwhile. Mr. Rowe, in allowing his temper to “punch down” at a small-time publication and an economist who just happened to provide a quote winds up, to my mind (having worked in non-profits a decent amount), causing more problems than he solves and looking like kind of a bully. He kind of does this a lot; it’s been pretty well-noted. Why bring negative press to your organization?

And I appreciate that you “as a woman” see nothing sexist in his remarks. I (as a woman) disagree. We can do that – God bless America! 🙂

Seriously? If you think this rebuttal to an opinion piece is nasty, you must not spend too much time reading comments on any website. I am female and have worked in male dominated positions the majority of my adult life and let me tell you: this piece was NOT sexist nor misogynistic in any way, shape or form. Looks like you missed it when Mr. Rowe used the pronoun “she” instead of the oft used “he” when describing a worker, and I’m NOT referring to his answer regarding the economist. If this opinion piece really set you off, I’d hate to see what you have to say about real cases of sexism, misogyny, bullying etc. You obviously haven’t done any research regarding Mr. Rowe, or at the very least, his public persona. If you had you wouldn’t have written what you did in your comment. I am speaking as a female and only for myself as a woman: please don’t invent or see problems that aren’t there. You are not helping our gender at all if you are going to holler “sexism” at every turn and it pulls attention away from the REAL problems women face in our society. Yes, sexism is REAL and misogyny is REAL and sexual harassment is REAL but it certainly doesn’t come from Mr. Rowe.

Low blows? Really? Did you even read it?

It was a good fisking, and as respectful (more so actually, given the accusations made) as the piece it answers.

And you even managed to squeeze in the sexism card. I’m not impressed.

It’s all truly sad when there is a great conversation to be had on these topics, but you can’t seem to resist cheap shots to appeal to the lowest common denominator.