Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
JimmyMonkey
Published Letters: 15
As to Hillary: I think she was remembering her emotions when she landed, which is usually what we remember and the case of most mis-remembering. Our emotions create a narrative which we overlay on to our actions.
But as to Salon: I really don't care who wins the vote, since Hillary and Obama both have essentially the same platform; one will provide a model of a black leader and other a leadership model for women. I think the US wins on either accounts. But I'm really kind of tired of the lame way Salon keeps ranting on incessantly with the obvious Obama bias. A couple of meagre observations about Obama don't count for actual balanced journalistic investigation. The negative articles and opinions about Hillary are not even investigative, they're barely even rhetorical . . . in fact sometimes it's just pure vitriol. I'm getting kind of sick of it. It's weak writing and lame politics.
I know this is buried in a pile of letters, so not sure who will ever read it. Not to worry, it's the participating in society that counts.
I rather think that the kind of letters written above validate the claims of those of us who believe that Obama is not really an actual person but a construct or, to paraphrase one quote in the article, a projection of the political fantasy of well-educated but politically unrealistic white people. For Blacks, he is the construct of their hopes and dreams for social legitimacy. That's far more understandable and reasonable.
Young, white, "well-educated" American voters are really, still, young white "well-educated" Americans. And honestly, not being a young American, but having lived as here 20yrs, I believe that there are probably no people groups in the world who are more wide-eyed, self-involved and loathsomely unaware of those facts due to a faux-critical approach to life. They pass off the enjoyment of low-level irony (only if it's funny), self-deprecating kookiness, public discussion of private happenings and being passionate about something they "think" is liberal as a genuinely critical view of the world and thus sort of assume that their perspective is somehow impervious to evaluation. They treat all alternative thoughts at claims with contempt (as witnessed by the horribly narrow-minded conservatism produced by Salon . . . and yes it is "conservative" because it's not open to change). They assume that their ideas are so lofty, so ideal that to doubt them must mean you're some kind of gutter creeping right wing nut job who can't see the depth of the "real" world they so clearly see.
Frankly, young Americans, it makes me want to hurl my lunch to think that you, of all people on the planet, should determine who the next president will be. You with your unbelievable self-centeredness and endless blathering on about yourselves and what you’re feeling. The social issues you discuss drive you to "discuss" them with passion because of how they make "you" feel. What makes me laugh, is your earnestness; you really think that you think. You mistake ceaseless writing and speaking for critical thought. But you're no different from the Reagan youth who only wanted things their way and look where that got us.
If you could drag your eyes from your own navels and look around, you'd see that you're just being ridiculous. Just silly. The only reason I have a problem with that is that you might elect a president with all of your blundering about the political landscape (as if you know where you're going and what you're doing . . . clowns). The whole world will be stuck with your sickening self-involvement trying to tell the rest of is how it needs to be and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
What's really amazing is the ability of Salon to continue to write the same article for four months straight and still have the "moxie" to pretend it's fresh journalistic perspective. I guess that wouldn't be so bad if the article were a decent one, but once more we're treated to an oversimplified thesis wrapped up in over worked rhetorical analysis: "This is one thing, but what if it's really THIS!" or "That is the case (did anyone say case?) but, maybe it's not, maybe, just maybe, it's THIS!."
But I have to comment at least on the ridiculous false choice set up between "those who get it" and "those who don't." What a first class piece of drivel and thinly veiled, catty attempt to lash out at people like me (under forty, PhD, Hillary supporter). Some of us just don't think that Obama is what you apparently blindly accept him to be. It's not that we don't hear the claims and appreciate their political potential; it's rather the case that we take in the whole story and understand that Obama is pretty much unicorns and pots of gold (albeit with some very ernest glares of outrage and sincerity amid his speeches). Hillary is not perfect but what Salon incessantly bitches about is just plain old political necessity.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
