The New Flavors of Tea: 2010 NYT Cartoon
(image by JoeInSouthernCA)
Several weeks ago, for reasons still unclear, a family member forwarded what I assume is a fairly typical but to me quite astonishing piece of nonsense about President Obama. Written by an alleged talk show host and syndicated columnist for that bastion of reasoned and enlightened commentary World Net Daily, the sender apparently thought I might either agree with the frothing-at-the-mouth opinions, or would be persuaded to see the error of my ways after reading the author's inane rant.
That person was quite mistaken, and I'm fairly certain my choice of words left no doubts.
According to the link containing the article, there appears to be some doubts about the author's stated professional history. Having never heard of him before (and I hope never again) I have no way of verifying his CV.
The African-American author [emphasized in the article's intro to presumably negate any charges of racism] offered his personal assessment of the President and First Lady to explain his rather strongly-worded dislike for both of them. Anyone who's encountered some of the uglier, bug-eyed crazy from the far-right would not be shocked by what was written, and I prefer not sharing too much of the vitriol to lend anything even remotely resembling credence to the rantings of the unhinged.
It's just the usual garbage, and that's the point of this piece. So here's just a sampling:
I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous....
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress....
His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable....
[T]he Obama's have taken lies,dishonesty, deceit, mendacity,subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility....
Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do that....
He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic,contumacious arrogance is unequaled.
Charming? Not so much. Idiotic? Getting warmer. Mostly, however, it was just embarrassing.
The characterizations of this pompous, light-up-the-far-Right extremists paranoid diatribe could last days. Lots of accusations; an episode or two massaged enough so each suddenly becomes a defining characteristic; no examples of any merit. "Say it and they'll believe it (we hope)" is the M O.
But notice anything about the substance in support of his inflammatory statements? That would be, there is no substance. Excellent job of expressing indignation and sympathy with the irrational fears and unfounded concerns of the masses, but light as air with factual support--the kind outside the extremist bubble of nonsense.
Anyone following the climate change "debate" [i.e., Facts vs "I Know Nothing But I'll Make Stuff Up!"], or the discussions about the continuing adequacy of our fossil fuel supply [i.e. More Facts Vs. "Could Possibly Have The Potential To Perhaps " Maybe"] has seen the same strategy. As a short-term consolidation of benefits for the few, it's quite effective.
An overburdened public ill-disposed to adding other major concerns to their full plates naturally turn to their chosen/respected go-to officials with the expectation that their interests are being addressed. They're Right, except that in these circumstances, "their interests" are those of the chosen, not the choosers. That's a problem.
Keeping their supporters sufficiently agitated while passing along the requisite supply of buzzwords and talking points to suggest the public has nothing to worry about and/or that the chosen ones are most assuredly working to protect their interests and needs is part of the process.
Effective? Yes. Honorable or beneficial to the masses? Not really.
What happens when Reality and Facts win out? Who wins? Who loses?