Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Apparently this was written by an Israeli fella. Whether or not that is true, I can't tell, but its interesting regardless.
So, what do you think? The bias is fairly obvious, though. =/
Four more years. Why?
What is it about Bush that has generated so much hate? Why is that hate is so global? What mobilizes the most shallow pop stars, narcissistic Hollywood icons, spaced-out ex-presidents and double-talking senators to unite in such a vitriolic fuming?
The media has laughed at Ford’s clutziness, Reagan’s forgetfulness, George the Father’s WASPiness, but brands George W. a Nazi? Why has the literary world even budgeted creative thought to contemplate the assassination of George W. Bush?
Iraq has certainly veered off into the ditch. You could say that the U. S., without the precedent of a 9/11 event, has easily liberated over 60 million people and sewn democratic reform where two nations have stumbled while experimenting with fascism.
You could say that because the U. S. needles true friends, Europe is rubbed the wrong way. That, unbidden, lances a pimple that grew out of the sudden orgy of utopia that is the EU.
However, is there a rational explanation for all the fanatical hatred of George W.? It is beyond the substance of the Florida election, it is beyond the intensity of ray guns that the Right has plinked at Bubba Clinton.
THE ERSATZ REDNECK
Bush is a southerner, but not a liberal or a Democrat. There has not been a drawlin’ and twangin’ conservative president for over a half a century. Why Bentsen, Carter, Clinton, Gore, Edwards? Because they satisfied a simple proviso: they balanced Yankee liberalism and did not spook the rest of the country with images of Appalachia or the Mississippi delta.
George W. is a thumbtack in the glass slipper: he adopted Texas. He relies on real political affinity and not on mere regional loyalty for support south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
For the Left, he is a suspect: he is a brazen twang monger; he likes barbeques, pick-up trucks, racecars, and the ranch lifestyle, and offers no flippant apologies thereon. For some reason it matters duplicitously little that his record on civil rights is impeccable, without a hint of the racism of a Lyndon Johnson, or Al Gore Sr.
The black leadership brands George W. using words like “the Taliban” and “the Confederate,” – however, no other, otherwise acceptable president has ever selected a black Secretary of State, a National Security Advisor and has actually spent so many billions for HIV research in Africa.
Liberals fume indignantly of social programs wasted away, but domestic spending during George W.’s reign increased annually at greater rates than during any Democratic administration. How obvious is it? Just hearken to conservatives; they are fretting about his Great Society concept.
Foreign policy? Kerry tore him apart. However, Kerry couldn’t say whether he would have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq, whether he is able or unable to specify how he would have wooed the Chamberlainian Europeans. It is after the elections, but anyone, please ask him or his groupies – how do the daily arrests of terror suspects and the Patriot Act destroy our freedoms? Why is it unnecessary to hunt down mass murderers?
THE FANATIC
To the media, the Left and to the unequalled exponents of faith and fidelity – the French, George W. sounds simple, Bible Belt, almost evangelically primitive. Liberals are unsettled that someone takes religion seriously, the religion that normally serves as a quaint social formality, to be used for funerals, weddings and Yuletide shopping music. Religion taken seriously poses clear and present danger to the irresponsible practice of lifestyle choices.
Baptists or those with any tinge of the South cause sphincter tightening: they take the Bible seriously. When Bush utters “God” with frequency slightly resembling that of Reverend Jackson, he is proclaimed, with appeals as if to some another, Stalinesque authority in the country, as a religious fanatic bent on insulting the feelings of the five-times-a-day praying Muslims.
B&W
George W. has been accused of being fanatical about the black and white, good and bad, bad-guy vs. good-guy outlook on the world. He definitely fits not into the cubbyhole of the amateur moralist in this decade oozing the cloying goop of skepticism and cynicism, all justified by political correctness. He surely ruffles the feathers of academia, the enlightened Hollywood and the iconized journalists to whom nuance, no matter how glib and flip, is the sacred cow.
The ultimate managers of morality, the bastion of character integrity, the abovementioned French, in their media pour forth geometry: they hate Bush, he should be thrown out, he should be run out of town - because he is square, he is linear, he is cubical, his head is square (loosely translated from French -Teflon). He says he is 100% sure. In their world, it is good enough to be 50% sure.
In the world of e-mailed quotes and sound bites and no action, the religious George Bush must be referred to as an abrupt, so un-Versailles-like, monochromatic, obtuse cowboy. How scandalous - he reminds everyone to make choices that are right, to take responsibility for one’s actions!
PREPPIE TRAITOR
He could have been in the same ballpark with Roosevelt and Kennedy. He had it all: the Eastern blueblood, the Ivy League. He threw it all away. Worse than a wayward American lost in Himalayas searching for the truth in the oxygen-poor atmosphere, he is guilty of converting to the mentality that is below the New England elite.
He married out. Unlike others, his wife is not from a moneyed family, she is not connected and Euro-sophisticated, like a Kennedy or Kerry wife. Unlike Hillary, Tipper or Teresa, Laura Bush has no regrets about her career, she never pontificates on coping with an infidel husband, on being a roaring woman, or on saving whales. She did fail to get her husband the USDA-like Grade A1 approval from NPR or New York Times.
The Left hates George Bush for his easily labeled who-he-is, and not the roll-up-your-sleeves what he does. His failing marks – his Christianity, his black and white weltanschauung, his Southern bumpkininism – are each a synergistic, gremlin-like multiplier of the poison that must be poured on anything Bush.
The events of 9/11 moderated this venom, Iraq rejuvenated it. It is easy to understand those who did not want to vote for him, but those who revel in the fount of disgust gushing for Bush only show the alarming shallow character that hoped to run the country.
That pure hatred is as dangerous as a sniper rifle in the hands of a clan man. The Left, badmouthing the good and goodmouthing the bad, surprisingly totalitarian-like, has signaled an ominous approval to the fanatical forces abroad and the anarchistic, irresponsible, vengeful ilk at home.
So, what do you think? The bias is fairly obvious, though. =/
