On the New Yorker cover:
In case anyone on earth still doesn’t understand
Those of us who are capable of thought dislike Obama’s policies, but it is not because he’s black, because those of us who think have already gone way beyond race.
It is not because he spent part of his youth in Muslim schools, the same can be said for plenty of people, and that doesn’t make them bad people.
It is not because we love Jesus, or like guns for hunting or defending our homes.
We dislike Obama’s policies and what he stands for because without exception, everything he stands for is bad for America, bad for America’s people, and bad for the future of this great nation. Unequivocally, Obama wants to infect this country with the incurable cancers of Socialism and Statism. he claims to be doing it for the good of the people, but the only people this will benefit are the ruling elites (him, and his brethren). The “little people” will be paid lip service, industry will be crushed, jobs will dissapear, and the mass of the populus will be reduced to the dole, supported by an ever decreasing number of able providers.
We don’t care if he stands for these things in te guise of a Klansman, of an orange midget, or a puerto-rican hip-hop artist. Wrong is wrong, whatever the package, and we object to the Wrongness of Obama, not what color is his skin. Frankly, we don’t care about the color of anyone’s skin, and we wish that whole line of bullshit was behind us. Move along.
14 comments Og | Uncategorized
Good post. Frankly I don’t care why people hate him as long as they don’t vote for his commie carcass come November.
A friend of mine attended an international conference over in Ireland and was surprised at how much hatred there was for George Bush and how much interest there was in Obama’s campaign. What this tells me is that if and when he isn’t elected we’ll hear from our own leftist press as well as the international press that ‘the United States is too racist to elect a black man!’ when in reality we just find his policies craptastic.
Nicely put.
Yes. Agreed. In the midst of all the persiflage and cannon fire, it’s always good to have these fundamentals stated clearly and succinctly.
Well done.
M
I wholeheartedly concur.
Our local daily rag(Pravada offshoot) had an interesting editoral about this New Yorker cover. This journalist has decided that satire has outlived itself. That only the sophisticated elite(in which he includes himself) can truly understand satire and the rest of the knuckle dragging public(conservatives mostly) take such things at face value.
First of all, 99% of the American public would never have know about the New Yorker cover had not it been pumped ever 10 minutes by the cable new networks. Most people have better things to spend their money on (beer) than that left-wing rag.
Second, it takes considerable talent (Johnathan Swift comes to mind) to produce good satire and it is evident that the staff of the New Yorker is lacking or devoid of such talent.
Last, if a sizable portion of the public have a lack of understanding of satire, it is because they were not properly educated in the subject during their school years. Since the faculties of most of our educational institutions are overwhelmingly liberal, then who is to blame?
Physician heal thyself….
Just a thought
He’ll be our next President. The Right leaning base has become splintered and weak. He’s come along at the right time to do the most damage.
Good fucking luck America.
Great job! I hope you don’t mind but I quoted this on the local papers political blog. I had to clean up the word bullshit to bull. I hope the have balls enough to print it.
They printed it! Here’s a link. Almost to the bottom under my name, if anyone cares to look at the drivel over there.
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/politicalblog/?p=2673#comments
TBird-Howdy. I’m one of those “liberal” instructors slowly corrupting your kids with my commie agenda. Did you ever think that just maybe a “sizeable portion of the public” doesn’t understand satire because “public” schools aren’t being funded well enough? Because understanding satire requires the abilities to hold two opposing perspectives at once, and to figure out which one is being promoted–you just don’t learn that from a NCLB-sanctioned multiple choice test. (I ensure you this random post is motivated by altruistic outrage rather than naive optimism…)
Actually, I agree with you on one point–the New Yorker staff wouldn’t know real satire if it kicked em in the face. As an elitist lit-mag reader myself (the lit-mags are elitist, not me), I despise the NYers pompous assumption that the audience generated by this particular cover (featuring a prominent POTUS candidate) would be familiar with the New Yorker’s historical tendency toward irony-infused cultural criticism, and their own political position on the matter. Obviously they screwed the rhetorical pooch. That’s likely what your Pravda-offshoot editorial writer wanted to say–it’s not that the “knuckle-dragging public” doesn’t understand the satire, it’s that the satire ISN’T EVEN satire. The NYer made the mistake of being arrogant, thinking it could educate a public audience who didn’t even read the damn thing. And for quality satire, I’d have to add our contemporary Colbert to the list (though from the sound of ye, ye’ll have to bite the bullet on this one).
And Og:
In your eloquent criticism of Senator Obama, you say, “the only people this [Socialism] will benefit are the ruling elites (him and his brethren).” Obviously you haven’t been taught by a Proper Pinko in an ideal, fully-funded public education institution. Because socialism does not reward the elite. In theory, it distributes wealth evenly among the people (hence the qualifier, SOCIAL). And socialism, as a viable alternative to capitalism, does not exist. (You can’t wave a magic wand and say “Presto! Socialism!” And you can’t become President and infect a country with it either.) So when you accuse Obama of playing to the elites, your fault lies in attempting to connect his “socialism” with his “elitism”–because you can’t have both. Either he’s for the people, or he’s for the elite. Which one is it? The “elitist” label doesn’t jive here either. But interestingly, if you wiki “Fascism” you’ll find this:
“a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race and promoting cults of unity, strength, and purity.”
Hmmm…even more interesting when juxtaposed to the following quote from this blog post:
“We dislike Obama’s policies and what he stands for because without exception, everything he stands for is bad for America, bad for America’s people, and bad for the future of this great nation.”
In that quote I see every indicator of what qualifies as fascism (at least to wikipedia)–nationalistic chest-pounding, an exalted purity of tradition, and a paranoid fear of cultural decline.
So, Og, my fellow cultural theorist and political analyst, in the words of TBird, and that hip, hip Lefty from Galilee, “Physician, heal thyself!”
On another point, in no way does Obama (nor the policies he indicates) imply he favors statism. In fact, a few weeks ago, in Zanesville, Ohio, he described a plan for intensifying (not oppressively expanding) Bush’s faith-based and neighborhood-based initiatives. These organizations provide volunteer, charitable support for folks who, under the USUAL Lefty Entitlement Pattern, would be “enabled” (in both senses) by welfare programs. The government assists these faith and community-based organizations through grants, and the org’s also benefit from donations by the private sector. Because they’re relatively free of bureaucratic bullshit, and staffed by people who WANT to help, they’re more efficient and more cost-effective than any “socialist” entitlement program ever could be.
And, just to end my little rant here, in case you haven’t noticed, over the past 8 years (at least) the “little people” HAVE been paid lip service, industry HAS been crushed, and jobs HAVE disappeared. All while on the “conservative,” pro-capitalist, neoliberal, big industry time clock.
Luckily, I can still teach…for now.
“Did you ever think that just maybe a “sizeable portion of the public†doesn’t understand satire because “public†schools aren’t being funded well enough?”
That is all we have done in this country for education for years now. Throw it more money. And still test scores drop each year. I think we’ve thrown enough money. How about we fire a bunch of poor teachers that the NEA says we can’t test to find out who is good and who is bad?
Don’t get me wrong. Two toughest jobs in this country is being a cop or a teacher. But bad ones sure screw it up for the good ones!
Bonnie, pour yourself a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up. Then climb over here and suck my balls.
My objection to Barack Obama is that he understands the consequences of his actions less than any President since Herbert Hoover.
Hoover signed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act into law in 1930. This had the desired effect of cutting US imports in half almost immediately. Our trading partners responded by enacting similar tariffs. This cut back US exports when the US was still a net exporter. Over 1000 economists signed a petition urging Hoover to veto the act, but they were ignored.
The reason that it took the US economy so long to recover from the 1929 Stock Market crash is the enactment of the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act and subsequent income tax increases by the Hoover and Roosevelt Administrations.
What rdennis and dick said.
We keep throwing money at the publik skools, yet the product continues to diminish in quality.
The definition of insanity: “Keep doing the same thing, and expecting different results.”