Exclusive to OpEdNews:
General News

Whose Boozle?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

- Advertisement -

Sometimes the ridiculous can only be recognized as such when it is presented in concrete form, particularly if the people holding a ridiculous belief are not adept at abstraction. For example, there are two remaining little lies about Obama that didn't get presented on the New Yorker cover (I still haven't received my issue!)--1) that he's a simple naif from the hinterlands, still wet (or green) behind the ears, who has overreached and is now too big for his britches and 2) that he's an elitist who attended the finest schools in the land and is now a Chicago pol too wily and beholden to the elites to be trusted. Both positions are equally ridiculous. How can you demonstrate that holding both of these beliefs at the same time (as many do) is absurd? Draw a picture.

If the New Yorker had presented Obama as ANYTHING, it would have offended a portion of his base--whether he was shown as a rich kid in a big house with a Harvard degree or a poor kid who survived on foodstamps and student loans in order to get that education. In fact, he's one of the kids for whom the foodstamp and student loan systems were specifically designed for. These systems identify and promote someone who can achieve and will prosper and succeed beyond anyone's expectations, if only given some decent nutrition, decent housing, and a leg up via help with the high costs of an Ivy education.

Now, at the end of the process, he is the best trained and most aware person we could hope for as president. He knows how hard it is to survive and succeed in a nation where all the decks are stacked in favor of the rich. For most of his base, we know where he stands because WE (I, in fact) survived from time to time on foodstamps. WE (I, specificly) borrowed a small fortune to get a good education, albeit in the Kudzu League rather than the Ivy League. We (I, personally) paid off those loans and then watched in horror as the jobs we trained for at such great expense were shipped overseas, and as one clear path to the future after another (the net bubble, the alternative fuels debacle, the peace dividend) was blocked by the criminal incompetence of one Bush leaguer or the other.

America could be a better place if  the royalists went to live in the royalist paradise--Saudi Arabia. Let the low-tax, low-wage flat-earthers live in their paradise--Haiti. Let the theocrats go live in their paradise--Iran. Leave America to us. We'll do fine without them.

In fact, Obama has disappointed me time and again with his comments on abortion and the fourth amendment, appeasing the republican royalists and theocrats. So I'm at best lukewarm about his presidency. I would have had the same trouble with Hillary Clinton--essentially a moderate republican in a democrat's clothing. I only pray that Obama is playing to the middle in order to get elected (as Bush did when he derided Congress for ignoring the needs of poor people--how ironic that seems now--or when he insisted that "W stands for Women" and told us fairy tales about a compassionate conservatism and a humble foreign policy. He was able to bamboozle just enough centrists to get the election close enough to steal. It now appears likely that he stole Ohio in 04 as well as Florida in 00--and whistleblowers are coming forward to tell us how it was done. Of course, for those of us paying attention as it was happening, the techniques are hardly news).

So I find myself among the slogging masses slouching toward the voting booth for Obama in the faint and fading hope that he will stand for something other than a republican agenda once in office.

- Advertisement -

I can only hope that the right boozle is getting bammed. Because if it's the left boozle, we're all going to get bammed.

But, returning for a moment to the subject--the satirical New Yorker cover. Think for a moment how much air time was given to debunking the various myths depicted on the cover before the issue appeared. Virtually none. Since the appearance of the cover, we have had nonstop debunking for a couple of weeks now. I think that beyond satire, the cover served Obama well. No one can now mention any of the myths depicted thereon without reawakening the debunking and making himself look like an ignoramus.

- Advertisement -

 

Adherent to the cowboy way, eschewer of four-letter words and dental care, founder of the hippie movement, and failed prospector, Gabby Hayes can be counted upon to point and say, "They went thataway," and to develop plans to cut them off at the (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Reflection on recent US-Iranian history

Why Obama Is Driving Us All Crazy

Why I Am a Liberal (for Eric Alterman)

Oil Shale's Time Has Not Come

Why Are the Media So Irresponsible?

The $5 Bailout

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
The "New Yorker" made a gaffe of terribl... by nightgaunt on Thursday, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:34:10 PM
The New Yorker cover is the picture of satire from... by gabby hayes on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 11:42:33 AM