Allow me to direct you to this ridic little gem that the geniuses at The Daily Show put together:
If you cannot view that video, let me break it down for you: Reverend Daniel W. Blair and Pastor James David Manning are both afraid of Barack Obama. Why? Well, for starters, Blair thinks Obama is clearly "exhibiting signs of the Anti-Christ". Pastor Manning thinks this is absurd, because clearly Obama is not the Anti-Christ; he's the next Hitler. I shit you not, folks. This is really what these two men believe, and they are spreading word about their theories. First of all, I think it's somewhat hilarious that both men have some sort of clergy title. As if religion needs more nut jobs out there. But, what angers me is their "logic", or lack thereof.
The Daily KOS breaks down the main points of each argument rather well, so I am going to steal that bit from there (my paraphrasing would probably be about the same).
Why Obama is the Anti-Christ
- People "worship" him.
- People agree his message.
- He "came from the sea" (code for Hawaii, apparently)
- He is swift like a leopard, has the feet of a bear, and has the mouth of a lion
Let's examine these points. I agree that there is a certain amount of Obama-worship that has been going on since the man popped up in the Senate, and it makes me kinda uncomfortable. But hell, look at The Beatles. Even John Lennon said they were bigger than Jesus, and that's because they were to a lot of people. Honestly, I think Jesus needs to have his ego deflated just a tad. He can't always be number one. OK, so there's that, the fact that people follow his message, which is seriously a dumb thing to say when you're talking about policy and change. What, we're not supposed to support people in politics?? Then there's the "came from the sea" thing, which, again, makes no sense. Perhaps he doesn't understand where Obama was born, or what Hawaii is. Someone should buy the man a plane ticket. And lastly, my favourite of all his points, is the whole physical description of what the Anti-Christ looks like. Let's say I bought into all of the other points, for the argument's sake. HOW does that last point make any amount of sense? Someone also buy the man some glasses... or perhaps a straightjacket, as he is clearly out of his fucking mind. Also, he's calling Obama a leopard-bear-lion. Is that supposed to be racist?
Why Obama is the next Hitler (Godwin, it's time to weep)
- America is in dire economic straits, just like Germany was in the 1930's.
- Obama is an effective speaker.
- Obama is a bisexual. When pressed for comment, Manning said he had "no empirical proof" of this.
I didn't really know to laugh or cry at this point in the segment, because I didn't think I would hear anything that was more retarded than Blair's crazy religious rhetoric. I was so very wrong. Again, let's cover each point. Yes, America is in dire economic straits. Sure, Germany was having it's fair share of issues in the 1930's, too. That hardly makes us EXACTLY alike, or even alike enough to be the basis of a comparison. Next, Obama as a speaker. Again, this is where I kinda side with the guy for a brief moment (with the very edge of my pinkie toe, and that's it. Then I run away, screaming, and collapse in a sobbing heap on the floor of my shower while scrubbing at my toe, my intermittent cried of "IT WILL NEVER BE CLEAN" echoing against the shower walls.). It's the whole Obama-worship thing that creeps me out, still. It's like people will practically crush each other to death in order to be within a mile of him when he's speaking. It's a bit terrifying, I admit, but it's Obama-mania, and I believe The Beatles did it first. And now, onto my favourite point: Obama is a bisexual. Bisexual, like bicycle, but "rolling on both ends, of the sexual spectrum". Oh yes, kiddies, that feeling you're feeling is that of horror mixed with the joy of a thousand unicorns jumping over rainbows. It is so deliciously absurd that there's almost no way to comment about it. I want to make a joke about it, but I can't because it is already so fucking funny. Alright, so now that I've laughed until I have vomited, let's examine this assessment. Obama is bisexual, just like Hitler. Oh wait, I almost forgot. Obama is also a PIMP. So, Obama is a bisexual pimp, just like Hitler. Now, a quick google search indicates that there might be a smidge of truth to the assertion that Hitler was bisexual (though I see nothing that indicates he was a pimp). However, I haven't seen anything that is conclusive. Please do correct me if I am wrong about that. I admit that I don't do a lot of Hitler research because, as mentioned in my first blog entry, I am a Jew and that shit kinda creeps me the fuck out. Anyway, so maybe Hitler was bisexual. But Obama? The fact that this Manning character admits to having no proof already indicates how crazy he really is. What the hell is he basing this assertion off of? His stellar gaydar? Does that even work with bisexuals? I don't really know, my Jewdar has never really worked and my gaydar has been on the fritz. I'm afraid of adding more -dars.
It's fair enough if these guys don't like Obama's policies, or just hate the guy because it makes them feel pretty. But making these obscenely outrageous comparisons to not only instill fear in the people idiotic enough to believe them but also cast Obama in this supreme evil light is offensive and intolerable. I'm especially disgusted with the Obama/Hitler comparison. Those three points are the basis of the comparison? I think that Obama's policies are incredibly different from Hitler's in the way that they do not involve racial extermination, genocide, concentration camps, saving the "pure race", or invading and taking over our neighbouring countries. Those are big fucking differences. I just read a transcript of his interview on Hannity and Colmes (which, by the way, is the biggest joke in editorial television. Colmes is a puppet, and Hannity is the one running things. It is in no way balanced, which is what the show, as well as all of Fox News, claims to be), and it was appalling what the man said about Obama, and even about the black community. These people bring such ire into my heart that I can barely even rant about all the things that are wrong with the statements made. But, I digress, yet again.
The next part of this is might seem hypocritical in a lot of ways, but it is also something that The Daily Show touched upon in their video: the notion of giving these people credence. I know that it makes for excellent television, to have such reactionary and blatantly insane people spewing their bullshit all over the place, but to host these people on shows that reach millions of viewers is irresponsible and absurd. Regardless of how much the hosts argue with these guys, there will be no swaying them. They are maniacal. They are too far gone. And all these news shows are doing is helping to spread their spiked Kool-Aid throughout the land.
I refused to link to Blain's blog, or any site that either of these men directly contribute to because I don't want to help them in any way. Yes, talking about them might cause some of you to google them and read more about their views, but people are lazy and I am hoping most of you won't care enough to give them those extra hits on their webpages. Additionally, I am a newcomer on the blogging scene and I have very few readers, so my sins of writing about this are not so great. The Daily Show gets a pass because they make fun of these guys so well, and also make fun of the real news shows for letting these guys have airtime. The Daily Show is comedy first, news second, so using these guys on the show is brilliant because, let's face it, they are comedy GOLD. But sensationalism in news always attracts a crowd, and these people will always get airtime because of it. The sad thing is that they think it empowers them, and in some ways it does. We need more people to strip them of their self-righteousness if they are going to be allowed on these shows. The Daily Show is pretty merciless in portraying these guys as outright whackjobs. Because that is what these guys are, and they should be treated as such, not as distinguished guests on a show that is meant to encourage (or at least pretend to encourage) serious political discourse.
Posts
When you posted your pre-rant, I was worried that you'd be arguing against any comparisons to Hitler on the basis that he is too much of an offensive figure to be used in that way. Luckily that's not the case.
ReplyDeleteI agree fully that these sort of silly comparisons are not only stupid but dangerous when they appear in a trusted source of news. However, these particular arguments are so foolish I don't even think gullible people would be swayed.
I especially like that you pointed out that Hitler was more than an effective speaker during troubled times. He was an effective speaker with a particular agenda, an agenda that Obama has in no way borrowed from.
Nice work.
You have point; while similar nutjobs have been around since forever we're only hearing about these due to a media focus.
ReplyDeleteOn the otherhand isn't there some responsibility on the audience to filter information for themselves? And where do you draw the line between crackpot to be shunned and minority opinion being censored?
Such nonsense views are the cost of increased access to information. Personally I'd rather have more information and have to tolerate the loonies than the reverse situation.
Dev, it's not about being censored. It's about giving more attention to these people. No one is saying that they can't get their word out. But I don't think that anyone should offer them a broader audience because, in a way, that legitimizes what they are doing. And, unfortunately, I do not have that much faith in the broader audience of America. People are absolutely crazy. And they believe things that seem impossible to believe. People looking to hate Obama for whatever reason might eat this up as truth. I mean, look at Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter's audiences. Or even Michael Moore's audience. I know people who ate up the Fahrenheit 9/11 bullshit like crazy. I fear the ignorance of others, which is part of the reason why I don't want these guys to get the exposure.
ReplyDelete