Good day, fellow Coffee drinkers. I troll a lot of internet during the day, and throughout my journeys I read a lot of things that really annoy me and some that actually make me angry. There are, of course, the general idiots who post poorly thought out comments at the bottom of articles. There are partisan pundits who write the disingenuous garbage that these people reply to. These pundits are so arrogant (or sloppy) that they even cite sources that negate their claims or expose their claims as misleading. I can’t really do anything about all this except maybe point out some of the most egregious examples from time to time. But there are a number of little things that I see weaved throughout all of these articles and posts that I must discuss with you a little. Individually, they’re little more than minor irritants. But when you see article after article and comment after comment using the same wording, it can drive you mad. So here are a few things that have succeeded in incurring my ire.
“The emperor has no clothes.” This is a big liberal catch phrase and it is liberally applied to Bush. The story is that the emperor is somewhat delusional and he insists that he’s wearing lovely robes and clothes when he’s in fact nude. No one dares to point this out. But a young boy, upon hearing the citizenry fawn over the emperor’s clothes, states simply that “the emperor has no clothes.” See, he’s all innocent and such and is pointing out the obvious whereas no one else dares to. Please, stop using this phrase. It wasn’t even that funny when it was first uttered. I get your point in using it on Bush, but come on. Come up with something new.
Lately, I’ve seen the term “fascist” used when describing liberals. I realize that it’s become somewhat of a slur against an opposing political party, but it is nonsense. I can better understand (but don’t condone) the use of more general insults, because using an existing ideology to describe another ideology is inane. The term is inherently negative, and is used not because it even remotely accurately describes liberalism but because it paints liberalism in the light of Hitler and Mussolini. Some aspects of liberal ideology might sound as if they’re similar to those of fascism, but that’s not the point, and if it was the point, it would still be a false comparison. Pundits and uninformed citizens use it solely because it sounds really bad. What’s ironic is that it has mostly been used to describe those on the right wing of the political spectrum.
Take the previous paragraph and substitute the term “fascist” with “Nazi” or “Islamofascist” and you have the same complaint. This is how hate speech starts. Hate crimes aren’t far behind.
You’ve all read about someone who “parties like a rock star” or is just plain “like a rock star.” But they’re not. They’re not rock stars and everyone knows this. They don’t party like rock stars, and they aren’t “like rock stars.” So why are these phrases being used (over and over and over again)? Nobel laureate Al Gore has been described in this manner. “Al Gore is like a rock star nowadays…” Al Gore is most certainly not a rock star. Sure, he’s popular right now, and he travels a lot and a lot of people want to see him give (boring) speeches (like they didn’t get enough of Mr. Personality in 2000). But that doesn’t make him a like a rock star. Similarly, Obama is not a rock star. He’s a politician. He’s charismatic, sure. But not a rock star. When the likes of Al Gore and Barack Obama start playing guitar, recording in a studio their own music, drinking heavily, snorting cocaine, traveling with an entourage of gorgeous women and roadies, then you’re more than welcome to describe them as rock stars. Until then, can we come up with a more appropriate descriptor? They’ve exhibited virtually none of the characteristics attributed to rock stars save the ability to draw a crowd and get paid for standing on a stage from time to time. Thus, not rock stars. Not even “like” rock stars or “sorta” rock star-ish.
For those of you who do not read much, you might not know that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. Surely you know of someone named Hussein, and I’ll bet he’s not a Boy Scout (Saddam?). Well, some people on the right take joy in referring to Obama by his middle name. I’ve seen “B. Hussein Obama” in more than one posting on websites. They do this to really illustrate to you what they perceive is his disconnection with mainstream America. They’ll also misspell his last name “Osama.” Wow. Talk about amateur. They claim that he’s Muslim. No, they assert that he’s Muslim, they don’t claim it. They do this as though he’s all one big lie and give the impression that they think that maybe he’s an al-Qaida sleeper agent, and they use his middle name exclusively to tie him to Islam. They say that he lived in Indonesia when he was young (true) and that he was educated in a madrassa (false). This is all very dumb. At the very least, I wish they would discredit him substantively; point out that he wouldn’t be a good President and why. Don’t resort to such smear tactics. When you refer to a viable Presidential candidate by his middle name to produce images of a totalitarian Middle Eastern leader, it makes your opinion meaningless.
The incessant comparisons to or wishing for past leaders in this race are making me ill. Obama is not the second coming of John Kennedy. Ronald Reagan will never again be. Asking any candidate to be these men, or comparing them to these men, is pointless. JFK and Reagan have become idols in our minds, and like all idols, we’ve forgotten (well, the worshipers have) about their faults, of which there were many for both men. JFK had more foreign policy experience in his right pinky finger by the time he ran for President than Obama will probably ever have. Even with that experience, he mucked up the Bay of Pigs pretty good. Do I really want a guy in office with less experience dealing with an arguably bigger issue? The Kennedy Administration also backed a coup in Iraq in 1963, which happened to allow a certain Baath Party to take power. Maybe the comparisons should stop, for the sake of Obama’s candidacy. Supporters say that it’s the hope for change that Obama brings to the table, just like JFK. Change, change, change. That’s all you hear about Obama’s campaign. What sort of change are we getting? Who knows?
And the Reagan issue? Well, I’ve discussed it before I think. If not, well, in short the whole “I’m a Reagan Revolution foot soldier” bit with McCain needs to stop.
Obama looks towards the future looking towards the past. McCain does the same with more emphasis on the past. It’s sickening. Can we have someone who has their own ideas? Does Obama have any ideas at all? We know McCain does, and he bucks the conservative system which makes conservatives mad (hence his insistence that he’s the new Reagan), but are his new ideas just going to be regurgitations of Reagan’s?
Funny Side Story: Amy Winehouse was denied a visa to come to the US to perform at the Grammy’s. It makes me laugh inside.
Political Update:
Yesterday Romney “suspended” his campaign, which actually shocked me. He says he did it so that McCain wouldn’t take too much of a battering before the general election in November. Noble of him…pundits say that he is setting his sights on a run in 2012. Read what Obama said about his campaign after Romney gave his reasons for the suspension (which was a swipe at the Dems). Also, read this ABC News blog on the messianic overtones of the Obama campaign. You’re going to have to read for yourselves today; no biting analysis from me. I’m finished; stick a fork in me.
Word of the Day: Aberrant (adjective): Markedly different from an accepted norm; Deviating from the ordinary or natural type; abnormal.
On This Day in History: Mary, Queen of Scots was executed (1587). She was suspected of being involved in a plot to murder her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I of England. A doctor in Salem, Massachusetts Bay Colony, suggests that two girls may be suffering from bewitchment, which led to the Salem witch trials (1692).
“All of us failed to match our dreams of perfection. So I rate us on the basis of our splendid failure to do the impossible.” – William Faulkner.
No comments:
Post a Comment