Though this isn't exactly breaking news, some of the findings of this particular study do seem a bit beyond perplexing. For example, the scores racked up by habitual Fox viewers on domestic topics -- stuff that perhaps even zombies should know -- were actually lower than the median score achieved by people who don't watch news at all.

He was asked if he watches "Fox News" and though he replied in the affirmative, it was later determined that he actually views general programming on a local Fox affiliate (like The Simpsons or American Idol). But he never watches the Fox channel that matters; the spiteful "fair and balanced" network of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and a host of other journalistic frauds. So, as it turns out this guy doesn't even know that he doesn't watch Fox News. Yet he's likely to score higher than someone who watches the Fox News Channel every day.

As this incident seems to illustrate, you don't necessarily have to watch the Fox News Channel to dislike President Obama. However, it sure seems like the place to go if you want to learn to hate him. And that's something that I gather is linked to Fox News Channel's "dumber than a doorknob" viewer demographic which the Farleigh-Dickenson study again uncovered. But it wouldn't be "fair and balanced" to fail to acknowledge that "dumb," isn't exactly how Fox viewers were identified in the study: "least informed" was the description used.

A Racist Renaissance?

But it's said that only a fool leans upon his own misunderstandings and clearly within the ranks of the Obama-haters reside quite a few. As such, there's rarely a shortage of stalwart defenders of an alternate reality. And they come forth prepared to respond to charges of anti-Obama racism in a manner expected of anyone prone to under-thinking and overreacting: by blocking their ears and bellowing out the familiar litany of nauseatingly trite denials. But the challenge to anyone considering joining those ranks is how to explain any of several well-publicized events with racial overtones that involved the President.

Among them:

Meanwhile, how is the avalanche of racist jokes explained?

But name-calling is probably the least troublesome issue. More disconcerting is the use of racial brinksmanship by either political party as a means of winning elections. And it's plainly obvious that testing the extremes of irrationality through racial provocation forms the basis for endeavors like resurrecting the Rev. Wright issue. They are no more than bald-faced appeals to the electorate's tart underbelly; that certain voter bloc that some have deluded themselves into believing numbers only a few -- "racially intolerant" Americans. But in the spirit of the intolerance most of these types also have for political correctness, I'll drop the politically-correct speech and simply call them what they truly are: ignorant racists.

"Simplifying ideologies"

As part of the method for reaching this conclusion, Eidelman and other study researchers interviewed subjects in local bars. "Alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons," writes Eidelman in the study abstract. "As the level of intoxication increased, so did political conservatism."

Well that's some real nice science talk there Doc. But it's time to call a spade a spade. And in Obama's case, calling him a "spade" would be one of the gentler in a series of abrasive invectives and crude racial innuendo directed at him since even before day one. Indeed, in its own peculiar way, the ongoing outpouring of racially-charged language offers a twisted illustration of the pot (Obama-haters) calling the kettle -- in this case, Obama -- black.

The point is, whether it radiates from pernicious religious figures like Rev. Graham or shoots directly from the besotted mouth of Satan's b*tch-Kitty herself, Ann Coulter, the level of pettiness and peevish derangement exhibited by the opponents of this President seems unprecedented. It's fittingly noted that hyperbole, distortions, even outright lying are fundamental parts of a political process in which all's fair in love, war and politics. It's just too bad that nowadays, racism has to be a part of what's considered fair.

As many have learned since Obama's election, there's a considerable difference between routine political hyperboles or distortion and savage below-the-belt personal attacks which often strike a racial tone and always strike at the dignity of the Presidency. It's difficult to avoid concluding that what's in play here is the refusal by many to accept the imagery suggested by the reality of an African-American in control of the White House. On the contrary, their behavior toward Obama often mirrors that of someone having caught a thief trespassing on private property.

"Hope and Change" vs. "great white hope"

For some, it may be hard to fathom a basis for such utter disdain for a President whose accomplishments include resurrecting the auto industry and ridding the world of Osama Bin Laden. There's no question that with a Democrat in office, partisan politics requires downplaying political accomplishments of any magnitude that can't be tied to a Republican. But for Democrat Obama, what makes matters worse is not just party affiliation but the lack of an off-setting "complexion connection" brought to the table. That's the missing link. It's where the distinction lies among the hardest of hard core Obama-haters regarding their hatred of the President. It's a rationale which ought to be far removed from partisan politics. But it is what it is. It's "a black thing."

"Republicans," Jenkins bemoaned, "are struggling right now to find a great white hope."

These efforts join the hyperbole, distortions, lies, obstructionism, and most of all, the shameless race-baiting which form the line of attack being used to make Obama a one-term President.

An Age of anti-Obama rage

While this country has never elected a perfect leader, in Obama, the America's voters chose a commander-in-chief who possesses the character and emotional fortitude needed for the challenges left by his predecessor and the primeval nature of his opposition. The slogan "No Drama, Obama," adopted during the 2008 campaign has remained for the most part, an apt description of the way this President has handled not only the multitude of crises, political or otherwise he's encountered during his first term, but also the blatant obstructionism and continual barrage of irrational and far-to-often race-based criticism that's come his way.

It's meaningful to note that in addition to its yearning for a "white hope" has been GOP rhetoric about the theoretical failure of President Obama's "hope and change" agenda. Such talk rings unbearably hollow, particularly when expressed by congressional obstructionists who've helped turn the GOP into the "party of no." Maybe these critics should be reminded that both hope and change, particularly in this context, is a two way street. Perhaps they should simply turn around, look into the mirror, and face their fears. Because until the other side begins to work on changes designed to transcend both innate and latent racism, the kind of change they hope for America really can't be seen as anything more an exercise in hateful thinking.

Anthony Barnes, of Boston, Massachusetts, is a left-handed leftist.

"When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world. I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation. When I found I couldn't change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn't change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family. Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world." - Unknown Monk (1100 AD)