Friday, August 29, 2008

Did anyone else notice the subtle racism in the Times this morning? This was the blurb for, and a paragraph from, “The TV Watch: On the Small Screen, Intimacy and Welcome Silence for Obama’s Big Rally” by Alessandra Stanley:

Wearing a flag pin and a confident mien, Barack Obama looked like a presidential candidate accepting the nomination of the Democratic party.

Well, excuse me, but what else should he look like?

And then there was David Brooks’ infantile response to Obama's historic speech, which serves as an indication of Republican desperation. I can’t believe the Times actually prints this stuff. On a par with McCain’s Paris Hilton video, Brooks insults “a new generation of Americans, a generation that came of age amid iced chai and mocha strawberry Frappucinos, a generation with a historical memory that doesn’t extend past Coke Zero.” Brooks, who was once responsible for an inane rail against hipster parents, of all things, must be feeling the pain of encroaching old fartdom.
Posted by at
Labels:

5 comments:

David said...

I can't believe they printed Brook's idiotic piece either. Even Pat Buchanan was gushing on MSNBC about the "best political speech" he had ever witnessed. When I was a kid, my dad made us watch JFK's inaugural address on TV - in b&w. Obama was up there with the great ones and made me proud. And how about the babe from Alaska? (bumper sticker: "we have the coldest winters but the hottest governor"). I'm sure she's a great governor, but is she ready for Putin and Ahmadinajab? I was in a doctor's office this afternoon, waiting to be seen for a sore throat, and an elderly couple were in the waiting room with me when the news came on about Sarah Palin. This sweet old lady pointed to the TV and said "If anything happens to him", and I jumped in "she's going to be the president, and her last job was as mayor of a town of 8,000 people" and we all cracked up.

August 30, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Carol Diehl said...

AND she's anti-abortion, AND under investigation by the Alaska legislature, AND said, when asked in July about the possibility of the veep job, that she didn't know what a VP did. She may have thought she was being funny, but I want a Vice President who's smart enough to do what the rest of us do when being considered for a new position: ask for a job description.

August 30, 2008 at 7:46 AM
martha miller said...

Wow - what an imbecilic, awful piece - they'll print anything.

I was shopping in a small clothing store (in downtown Portland, Maine) yesterday morning when a group of several women including myself spontaneously started up a conversation about Obama's speech seen the night before. One of the women said that she has a friend, an older woman, who stunned her by admitting that she will not vote for Obama simply because she "doesn't recognize him." (?!)
Goes to show you that unhealthy people stick with THE FAMILIAR even though it is harmful, abusive and injurious - even deadly.
I have not felt this passionate about voting for a president since my first time voting at age 18 in 1972...
You remember THAT election...

August 30, 2008 at 8:49 AM
David said...

McCain himself said the VP's job is to cast tie breaking votes in the senate and to enquire daily as to the health of the pres. I think I'd add a crash course on international affairs, public policy, a little american history - just in case huh?.

August 30, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Pretty Lady said...

I was genuinely shocked and baffled at that Brooks piece. How is it POSSIBLE for a basically intelligent human being to be that clueless and shallow? Our very own O had a letter published in the Times about it; too bad all the rest of the letters were lame.

In my stalking of right-wing extremists, I have seen that there is a whole crowd of people who really are that clueless--who look at Obama and Palin and say, "she's got more 'executive experience' than he does," and their thought processes end there. I think that people with very rigid moral reasoning capacities are incapable of perceiving Obama's strengths. For them, 'morality' is solely about figuring out who the 'bad people' are and attacking them; you figure out the 'bad people' by applying a black-and-white set of rules to their external identities. Empathy, subtlety, depth of consideration, organizational skills, and ability to understand differences among people mean nothing to them.

I think this election is symbolic of a major shift that is taking place in human consciousness right now. We're moving from rigidity and tribalism to a wider, more empathic range of consciousness. It's touch and go whether the majority can or will make the shift, though. I'm praying that we rise to the occasion.

August 31, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)