Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Sticks and stones....

By now you've likely heard about the controversial cover on The New Yorker magazine this week. If not, check out the Huffington Post for a quick summary.
Apparently this satirical cartoon drawing has some left-wing pundits and dignitaries all up in arms, including the subject himself. The consensus among them seems to be that the cover is "tasteless and offensive" (the exact apprisal from the Obama campaign, btw).
Here's the thing...it is satire, which by the way, was published on the cover of a left-wing publication! It was implicitly designed to point out the absurdity coming from the right about Obama! How anyone could not see this is beyond me.
A friend recently said to me, "For anyone who is well educated, [voting for] Obama is a no-brainer."
Okay, for someone with a Bachelor's degree in Marketing and who tries to keep up with current events and is reasonably well-read, this is not necessarily true. I happen to still play the middle and am still weighing the pros and cons of both camps (always my preference over blindly following one side).
But let's just say for argument's sake that the statement is valid. Intelligent voters may support Obama, but that does not mean it works the other way. That is to say that not all Obama supporters are intelligent. This is evident by the uproar caused by this cartoon. Of course, as is the case any time a black person is targeted in any way whatsoever, Al Sharpton had something to say about it. What else is new? And as is the case almost any time he gets involved in something, it's an occasion where I can point out something often overlooked in this increasingly politically correct nation; it is not a right of an American citizen to not get your feelings hurt! You do not have the right to not be offended!
In fact, quite contrary, it was the artist's freedom of expression, and The New Yorker's freedom of the press that was at play here, and kudos (respectively) to the both of them for standing behind the drawing and the subsequent publication of said drawing.
Funny, it's usually the liberals that have the sense of humor, but they are also the biggest whiners when they don't get the joke.

Speaking of Obama supporters, I'm not sure if ever in my lifetime I've seen a candidate with so much "blind" support. If you're not sure what I mean by this, go find 10 random people that are supporting Obama, and get back to me if more than 1 (2 at the most), can give you a thought-out, legitimate reason for supporting him. Dollars to donuts that you'll mostly get "I like the way he speaks for change" or other similarly vacant stances.

Which segues nicely into Obama's "change". Here's an interesting quote from the aforementioned Huffington article, which is actually citing another article (of which I've only read 2 of 15 pages so far):

The companion article by Ryan Lizza, who has written extensively about the campaign, traces Obama's early career and rise through Chicago politics. It's very long (18 pages!) and probably won't thrill a lot of Democratic party faithful, either, since it advances the image of Obama as a skilled and calculating politician who rose by becoming a master of the game:

"[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."

Now, maybe I'm reading the above paragraph wrong, but the way I read it, it seems that if this is true, then Obama (if and when elected) will bring about anything but change. It sounds like he's best at playing the game as is. Just another cog in the wheel.

Three years, three months, one day, 18 hours smober.
47551 cigarettes not smoked, saving $12,482.14.

No comments: