|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Personally, I'm voting for anyone else except Obama. I think he's full of ______ ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SirFink
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was going to post this topic when I first read it yesterday on a news feed, and I've been holding off commenting because I was sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop. "Tasteless and offensive," the spokepeople said - but who is it offending? The obvious answer, to me, partly because I know the New Yorker is a home for humor, was conservatives, the ones whose blogs all these lies can be found in without looking hard at all ...
But. Turns out. I was wrong.
| Quote: |
"You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things," the presidential candidate told CNN's Larry King. "And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about." |
Okay, now somebody's gonna call that preachy, but it's always struck me that every time some hater calls Barack a "secret muslim" the subtext is obvious: the towel heads who bow down to allah 7 times a day - they are the enemy.
There's some disingenuousness going on - Obama and his advisors know the cover is satire just as much as you and I do - but there's a good reason for it: this "controversy" gives them the opportunity to talk about this, call it the bigotry that it is, and to challenge the GOP by implication to disavow and root out any traces of it on thier side of the aisle.
And that's cool. It's pre-empting the swift-boaters, and it's what needs to happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately, the way Obama chose to deal with this is being covered, not as a way to denounce the bigotry that the picture is about, but as a lack of humor, an over-reaction. I think the author of the piece I linked to above had a better approach: "�The New Yorker has brilliantly encapsulated the evil right-wing campaign against Barack and Michelle Obama, a campaign that must not be allowed to gain purchase in the American psyche.�
I think that would have drilled a big gaping hole in the swiftboat.
(I clicked on Submit too soon.)
The stuff about Obama being a secret Moslem and the shrill criticism of Michelle are appeals to fear. Obama has missed a big opportunity to attack the fearmongering. People know their fear was manipulated and resent it. With the right handling of the issue, this would have been a major help to the Obama campaign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The stuff about Obama being a secret Moslem and the shrill criticism of Michelle are appeals to fear. Obama has missed a big opportunity to attack the fearmongering. People know their fear was manipulated and resent it. With the right handling of the issue, this would have been a major help to the Obama campaign. |
One of the few times we disagree, ya-ta. Barack ponts to the GOP and calls them on this or that blogger here or there who is shilling for them, he gets called over-sensitive at best ("and isn't it just like them to be that way, right? You know what I'm saying ... ") or he's playing the race card ("... and you know those people are gonna do that, ever chance they get. Hey, tell me I'm wrong.")
Note how this WAS handled, though. A spokesperson at a press event called it "tasteless and offensive," and Barack himself had no response at first, appearing to have been caught flat-footed by it all.
BUT even though the image portays stereotypes about black people as well as muslims, Obama is not criticizing that, but rather is objecting to image of the muslim being used as a weapon. Why would that be? Especially when the "black power" charicature employs his wife, about whom he is known to be protective.
In the end, "siding with the muslims," - a phrase taken out of context from one of his books, but often used against him, if only in the shadows - might be taking a greater risk than talking about race ... we'll have to see how it plays.
Complimenting the New Yorker Magazine for their brilliant satire would have been the wrong course. He's had to battle being called "elitist" already from Hillary, even though she went to the same kinds of universities he did, and expressing approval for a high-brow eastern liberal publication that regularly uses big words (and stuff) just wouldn't fly with the NASCAR crowd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's some good analysis, Bobster.
Obama has finally been given the opportunity to stand up for Muslims rather than merely deny that he is one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Globe & Mail also has a piece on why Obama should be thanking his satirists:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080716.wcomanji16/BNStory/specialComment/home
| Quote: |
First, left-wing voters who feel betrayed by Mr. Obama's increasingly centrist positions have been yanked back to his side. No matter how passionately their man explains his moderation on wire-tapping or withdrawing from Iraq, his words won't be the red meat that inflammatory visuals are. Of late, these activists have needed their hearts stirred by hardened moral combat. The New Yorker is helping consolidate the Obama base at exactly the right moment.
Second, his campaign can now insist that the media, including liberal organs, are not all treating their candidate with kid gloves. Such a claim will be valuable when trying to win sympathy from journalists in future negotiations.
This unexpected deposit in the Democratic pity bank arrives not a minute too soon: Rolling Stone and Newsweek, major publications catering to key constituencies, have just published issues with Mr. Obama in glowing cover stories.
Finally, the New Yorker debacle could make Mr. Obama a stronger candidate by forcing him to deal with the "Muslim rumour" while he has time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| That's some good analysis, Bobster. |
Yes, I found it a good post. No feces-stirring opportunities here.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="The Bobster"]
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| One of the few times we disagree, ya-ta. Barack ponts to the GOP and calls them on this or that blogger here or there who is shilling for them, . |
The GOP is not responsible for what bloggers say. If I operated a blog and called Barack a "secret Muslim" (DISCLAIMER: I do not think he is one at all, merely hypothesizing)
how is the GOP responsible for that? After all I am not even an American, just as some of these bloggers may not be. Nor I would think that Obama is privy to which bloggers are "shilling" for the GOP vs. bloggers who simply dislike him or who feel he is a bad choice for president.
I guess then any time a left wing blog goes after JMC the Democratic party is responsible for anything they say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The GOP is not responsible for what bloggers say. |
I don't believe I used that word ("responsible") but it is easy to see that the GOP benefits by having racists in their crowd, especially at this particular moment. It's the heart of what used to be called "The Southern Strategy," and on other threads I've discussed how it is alive and well in the current day.
But since you brought the word up, I think it's not unfair to say that a responsible candidate - and I do consider McCain to be so - has a responsibility to disavow and repudiate bigoted discussion and innuendo among any groups or individuals who speak in support of him. It's an obligation he has to himself - because he was smeared in the past by opposition supporters claiming he had a "black baby" (actually, an adopted child from Bangladesh) - but also to his constituents because he has pledged repeatedly to wage an honest and fair compaign, and so far he has. He has repudiated and distanced himself from a fundamentalist evangelist who spoke glowingly of Hitler being used a tool to help the Jews return to Israel, and we would only have disprespected him had he not.
In a political atmosphere where the opponent has called for a new kind of politics that attempts to unify and create rather then divide and destroy, this kind of thing is not only ethical, but pragmatic and smart.
But I'm talking about doing a little more. McCain personally denounced the New Yorker cover almost at the same moment the Obama campaign did, and we expected no less than that from what we know of him. What I'd like to hear, what perhaps he needs to say, is something along the lines of:
"Anyone who tries to damage my opponent by means of his race or by spreading untrue rumours about him of any kind - that person is not my friend, no matter how much they may claim to support my campaign to become the leader of this nation. I do not consider such people to be good Americans, and I oppose them and their methods to the same degree and extent that I support what is good and best about our country.
Bloggers have become the attack dogs of American politics, and it's true for both sides. They can be valuable for rooting out actual information, and for keeping people talking about a particular story or issue for a little longer than the average media "news cycle" ... but they are also great ways for the ignorant, uninformed and hatemongering cretins to gather and spread and reinforce slurs, innuendo, and outright lies.
And when it happens, it happens outside of any clear connection to the candidate that benefits from it - but it does happen, and the candidate DOES benefit.
It's just one more aspect of the problem posed by Political Action Committees (PACs) and so-called 527 groups that claim not to be working under the direction of any particular candidate, and thus are able to avoid election funding limits or scutiny from any variety of state or federal elections commisions. In 2004, The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth was a 527 group, and very few people today believe there was no connection or coordination between them and the Bush Re-election campaign - and this year, it's the existence and of PAC money and 527 groups that most likely had the greatest effect on Obama's decision to eschew public campaign financing this time around. Reform is needed, clearly, but no one has figured out how to do it yet.
Bloggers are similar, I think. A candidate like McCain who sincerely wants an open and direct discussion of the issues needs to make it clear to his supporters, even ones in the blogosphere - and this is what we call leadership, you know - that he will not abide winning the election because of lies and hate spead by people on his side.
I think it's something he can do, and I think he'd be better off for it in the long run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
