Via Boortz, I came across one gem in response to another.
Oh boy, where to start.
The first (bad cop) is a fine tribute to how small a grasp most voters have on what really matters about an individual, especially one who’s seeking to rule you. A few citations:
“He’s too new … and he needs to put some meat on his bones,” says Diana Koenig, 42, a housewife in Corpus Christi, Texas, who says she voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
“I won’t vote for any beanpole guy,” another Clinton supporter wrote last week on a Yahoo politics message board.
Instead of judging based the candidate’s stance on freedom, sovereignty or justice, these people are more concerned with petty physical details, which are more easily integrated attributes that require much less thought. They feel an unnamed urgency to be involved with the election, but don’t have the slightest clue where to begin. So, they resort to the most basic means of judgment - evaluation of physical features - as a way to “get involved”. Man’s mind, his intellect, his philosophy -the only import aspects of a candidate- aren’t even a blips on their radar.
The article then tries to speak out to the more scientific minded drones with an appeal to authority, and departs with a hint of suspicion.
Dr. Scheiner didn’t disclose his patient’s exact weight, but medical observers estimate that the 6-foot-1.5-inch-tall senator appears to weigh at least 10 pounds less than the roughly 190 pounds that the average American man of his height weighs. The Obama campaign declined to comment for this article.
We then get to a curious proof of Obama’s ‘keepin’ it real’ side immediately followed by the transformation of such (supposed) vice into a tribute to his near deitous status.
Sen. Obama is not without vices. According to Dr. Scheiner’s medical report, he has quit smoking “on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success.” People close to the senator say he began smoking nearly three decades ago and smoked about five cigarettes a day.
Some voters say that even this adds to Sen. Obama’s somewhat superhuman persona. “I mean, really, who quits smoking and doesn’t gain any weight?” says 30-year-old Stella Metsovas, an Obama supporter in Laguna Beach, Calif.
[emphasis mine]
This article strives (in appearance) to be a candid insight into the diet, physique and eating habits of politicians in general and Obama in particular. There’s no mention as to why this topic is relevant or should be interesting. It’s written by, directed to and about those who seek the fast-food drive through election - where a brightly colored, yet simple icon will suffice as qualification for their support.
However, I think there is another motive that I’ll get to below.
So, we have irrelevant chatter.. and now an “insightful” response to it.
Timothy Noah (good cop) thinks all this skinny talk is nothing more than a facade for the real agenda - RACISM.
The promise of Obama’s presidency, in many people’s minds, is partly that America will move toward becoming a post-racial society. It’s pretty clear, though, that we aren’t there yet. When white people are invited to think about Obama’s physical appearance, the principal attribute they’re likely to dwell on is his dark skin. Consequently, any reference to Obama’s other physical attributes can’t help coming off as a coy walk around the barn.
It might be argued that body weight differs from certain other physical characteristics (apart from skin color) in that it has never been associated with racial caricature. Chozick wasn’t asking (and, I feel sure, would never ask) whether Americans might think Obama’s hair was too kinky or his nose too broad. But it doesn’t matter. The sad fact is that any discussion of Obama’s physical appearance is going to remind white people of the physical characteristic that’s most on their minds.
Race certainly seems to be on Timothy’s mind.
The problem is that ‘Race’ is an indicator or ethnicity. ‘Skinny’ is an adjective describing relative body mass. Yes, Obama has a particular race. Yes, he is skinny. For Timmy to grant correlation the upgrade to causation is a major stretch. By his standard, apparently picking any physical attribute of Obama could be cast as a racial metric.
These articles are perfect examples of the “titanic deck chairs” aura of our media. Two pundits chattering about misguided and totally irrelevant topics. The former a superficial ad hominem. The latter a smearing straw man. Both come across as underhanded variants of the vicious goal - to renounce an opposing stance not by reason and logic, but by evasion, diffusion and distraction.
I think they both are on the same team. Sure they’re both collectivist, but I mean on a more concrete level.
I think these stories are supposed to be legitimate and unrelated topics - however, I think the WSJ piece could very easily be an intentional lob designed to be knocked out of the park by an accomplicing lefty pundit.
What better way to kill two birds with one stone. They know that most of their audience think and operate on a superficial level. What better way to glorify Obama’s looks as virtues in once sense, and paint anyone as bigots who consider such as meaningful in another.
This is “Good Cop - Bad Cop” journalism.
