Why you hate Barack Obama

[Juan_Bottom]

Leonard Pitts: Sick and tired of being sick and tired of this disease

In 2003, Charles Krauthammer, a columnist and psychiatrist, coined a new term. Noting what he said was “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush,” Krauthammer identified a previously unknown malady he called Bush Derangement Syndrome.

No shrink am I, but it seems obvious to this untrained eye that B.D.S. has lately been supplanted by a new disorder. Call it Obama Dementia, the onset of acute cognitive dissonance in otherwise normal people upon exposure to the policies, presidency or existence of President Barack Obama. And let us pray it’s not fatal because if it is, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are not long for this world.

The former railed against the recently passed and Obama-supported Food Safety Modernization Act that, among other things, gives the Food and Drug Administration power to order food recalls and increases inspections at food-processing facilities. You may wonder how anyone could oppose that, but in Beck World, “This is about control and, in the end, starvation.”

Silly me. I had thought it was about fixing a lax food safety system that, in just the last few years, has seen recalls of spinach, tomatoes, peanuts, batter, cheese, chocolate, eggs, crab meat, alfalfa sprouts and Froot Loops.

As for the former governor of Alaska: Palin has repeatedly ripped Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign to combat childhood obesity, calling it the “nanny state run amok.” She even underlined her opposition by taking cookies to a school.

From Lady Bird Johnson’s campaign to beautify the highways to Laura Bush’s work on behalf of literacy, there is a long tradition of the first lady undertaking some apolitical project for the common good. But because Michelle Obama now holds that unofficial office, we’re supposed to believe there’s something sinister in encouraging American kids to put down the video controllers and get off their fat behinds?

Say what you will about the sufferers of B.D.S. — and Krauthammer was correct that “some” criticism of the former president was couched in rhetorical excesses that bordered on lunacy — but at least they were arguing about issues of momentous controversy: war, terror, torture. These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

It’s like they’re not even trying anymore, as if they know they are playing to an audience so primed and Pavlovian they don’t have to work too hard. There is a lazy reflexiveness here that suggests that if Obama came out against brain cancer, they would announce their support for the disease.

Not that Beck and Palin are unique. To the contrary, from Rep. Michele Bachmann’s claim that a presidential trip to India would cost $200 million a day to Rush Limbaugh saying the president was on the verge of outlawing fishing to Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin facing court-martial because he believes the president is foreign-born and his orders thus invalid, Obama Dementia has reached epidemic levels the last two years.

Still, it’s a mistake to define this malady simply in terms of a given president. This dissonance, this divorce of rhetoric from reason from reality, says less about them than about us.

It says we are infected by a view that we are not a nation with a nation’s sense of mission but a loosely affiliated collection of interests willing to do anything to advance themselves. It says we are afflicted by an acute tendency to regard difference of opinion as defect of humanity. It says we are suffering a false belief that argument is its own reward.

I have no cute name for the disorder, just one earnest wish for all of us.

Get well soon.

This is probably the best explanation that I've heard as to why so many people hate him, so I'm glad to share it with all you bandwagoners who hate him. His explanation is more complete than yours even is.

[GabonX]

That's a great article for people who want to ignore real problems and pretend they don't exist..

[spurgistan]

Correct. Nobody in the world doesn't like Barack Obama.

[Juan_Bottom]

That's a great article for people who want to ignore real problems and pretend they don't exist..

Well, my response to that would be Mr. Pitt's impressive resume that has won multiple awards for political commentary:

Pitts was awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. He was also a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1992. In 1997, Pitts took first place for commentary in division four (newspapers with a circulation of over 300,000) in the American Association of Sunday and Feature Editors' Ninth Annual Writing Awards competition. The Society of Professional Journalists, the National Association of Black Journalists and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others, have honored him. He is a five-time recipient of the National Headliners Award. In 2001, he received the American Society of Newspaper Editors prestigious ASNE Award For Commentary Writing and was named Feature of the Year Columnist by Editor and Publisher magazine. In 2002, the National Society of Newspaper Columnists awarded Pitts its inaugural Columnist of the Year award. Also in 2002, GLAAD Media awarded Pitts the Outstanding Newspaper Columnist award.

He was dead-on with this:

Say what you will about the sufferers of B.D.S. — and Krauthammer was correct that “some” criticism of the former president was couched in rhetorical excesses that bordered on lunacy — but at least they were arguing about issues of momentous controversy: war, terror, torture. These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

It’s like they’re not even trying anymore, as if they know they are playing to an audience so primed and Pavlovian they don’t have to work too hard. There is a lazy reflexiveness here that suggests that if Obama came out against brain cancer, they would announce their support for the disease.

[the.killing.44]

cuz hes black !

[InkL0sed]

That's a great article for people who want to ignore real problems and pretend they don't exist..

Mrs. Obama's campaign against obesity: a Real Issue.

[Serbia]

I hate him because it's en vogue.

[oVo]

I don't hate him, probably because I don't read Vogue.

[john9blue]

- use time machine
- make thread titled "Why you hate George W. Bush"
- post article with names changed
- hear liberals desperately try to point out fallacies in the article

[spurgistan]

Errr... that was what the article was called. No time machine needed! Hooray (or, boo, I guess. Time machine hooray!)

[thegreekdog]

Apart from the obvious "Yeah, but youse guys did this to Bush" sort of argument...

These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

Really? Then those critics aren't prominent... Sarah Palin notwithstanding. Because there are a lot more things to be critical of the president than child obesity programs (which every freaking administration has).

[Night Strike]

Apart from the obvious "Yeah, but youse guys did this to Bush" sort of argument...

These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

Really? Then those critics aren't prominent... Sarah Palin notwithstanding. Because there are a lot more things to be critical of the president than child obesity programs (which every freaking administration has).

I was thinking the same thing when I saw that snippet: convenient of the author to completely forget the real reasons people don't like Obama: massive government spending and massive government control of private sectors. Typical.

[Timminz]

He doesn't piss me off as much as Bush Jr. did. That's about all I think I can say about him.

[saxitoxin]

I hate Obama because I love peace and freedom.

"He must resign." - Julian Assange

[Joodoo]

He blames all of America's economic and social issues on the RMB exchange rate.

[GabonX]

That's a great article for people who want to ignore real problems and pretend they don't exist..

Well, my response to that would be Mr. Pitt's impressive resume that has won multiple awards for political commentary:

Pitts was awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. He was also a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1992. In 1997, Pitts took first place for commentary in division four (newspapers with a circulation of over 300,000) in the American Association of Sunday and Feature Editors' Ninth Annual Writing Awards competition. The Society of Professional Journalists, the National Association of Black Journalists and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others, have honored him. He is a five-time recipient of the National Headliners Award. In 2001, he received the American Society of Newspaper Editors prestigious ASNE Award For Commentary Writing and was named Feature of the Year Columnist by Editor and Publisher magazine. In 2002, the National Society of Newspaper Columnists awarded Pitts its inaugural Columnist of the Year award. Also in 2002, GLAAD Media awarded Pitts the Outstanding Newspaper Columnist award.

Appeal to authority

He was dead-on with this:

Say what you will about the sufferers of B.D.S. — and Krauthammer was correct that “some” criticism of the former president was couched in rhetorical excesses that bordered on lunacy — but at least they were arguing about issues of momentous controversy: war, terror, torture. These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

It’s like they’re not even trying anymore, as if they know they are playing to an audience so primed and Pavlovian they don’t have to work too hard. There is a lazy reflexiveness here that suggests that if Obama came out against brain cancer, they would announce their support for the disease.

You shouldn't be for or against a bill or plan because of it's title...

Also, I wouldn't describe something that totally misses the point as spot on. If you happened to miss the point over the course of the last 4 years, see posts by Saxi and Nightstrike.

[BigBallinStalin]

Good example of a strawman argument:

Say what you will about the sufferers of B.D.S. — and Krauthammer was correct that “some” criticism of the former president was couched in rhetorical excesses that bordered on lunacy — but at least they were arguing about issues of momentous controversy: war, terror, torture. These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

It's not that simple. Consider the food safety bill S.510. Certain regulations within it will actually drive out competitors (like small farmers) unnecessarily. I say unnecessarily because some of those restrictions don't really bring about increased safety. (http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/food-saf ... afety-bill
The ultimate purpose of that bill is to keep small farmers from competing with the larger corporations by increasing they're operating costs to such point that it becomes to expensive to continue. Of course, such costs are minimal to the big businesses.

In my opinion, childhood health shouldn't be dictated by the government through the current method. There's enough regulation already anyway. It's best to leave that problem to the parents and those kids' proximate environments and institutions--whoever will feel motivated to establish an NPO.


Also, it's not so much the president in charge of all this, but also the congress and senate. To shift all blame on just one position ignores other important influences.

[Aradhus]

Its funny, I was sitting in the dark last night, wondering, 'why do I hate Barack Obama?'. And now I know, thanks for enlightening me. Its a magnificent argument that can delegitimize every single criticism you have of something in one fell swoop.

George Bush, B.D.S, Barack Obama, Obama dementia, lets combine these mental issuses and give it a more accuracte moniker:

Pussy Whipped. Gerrit?!

[Juan_Bottom]

It's not that simple. Consider the food safety bill S.510. Certain regulations within it will actually drive out competitors (like small farmers) unnecessarily.

^This is completely fair, and intelligent critisism. You win. Arguing against the bill because "it's about starvation" is not intelligent. That's what Leonard Pitts is kicking at. Obama's most vocal and prominent critics are preaching to an audience who only wants to hear "Obama bad." What they're actually saying isn't important to them. The same states that have laws requiring you to have auto insurance want to put up a fight over being forced to buy health insurance. It's weird.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not that simple. Consider the food safety bill S.510. Certain regulations within it will actually drive out competitors (like small farmers) unnecessarily.

^This is completely fair, and intelligent critisism. You win. Arguing against the bill because "it's about starvation" is not intelligent. That's what Leonard Pitts is kicking at. Obama's most vocal and prominent critics are preaching to an audience who only wants to hear "Obama bad." What they're actually saying isn't important to them. The same states that have laws requiring you to have auto insurance want to put up a fight over being forced to buy health insurance. It's weird.

...

My point isn't about whether or not Obama's bad. But on that note, I think he's misled because he looks to government regulation (sodden with corporate interests) as the answer to this nation's many problems.

I'm not down with forced car insurance either, so forget those states...

If starvation within the US is really a big problem, then having a food safety bill isn't the correct way to go about alleviating it. There's much better ways to encourage the growth of half-way homes and soup houses, than enacting what this food safety bill calls for.

The food safety bill is just bundled big business benefits at the entreprenuer's and small businesses' expense.

I can't tell how much of your reply is sarcastic, so I'll keep rolling:

[Night Strike]

The same states that have laws requiring you to have auto insurance want to put up a fight over being forced to buy health insurance.

Those are two completely different systems. The fact that people still try to equate those two is astounding. To explain the system again, you must purchase car insurance because driving is a privilege and the other drivers on the road need to be protected in case you cause an accident. The decisions a person makes about their own life affects themselves, not others, so you can't force them to buy insurance. You can't make a person buy anything simply because they're alive.

As an interesting addendum, even if the comparison were valid, it would show that the current health insurance law completely fails. I'm pretty sure many states (I know my state does) allows people to prove they have enough income to cover liability-only expenses so that they do not have to buy insurance. The health insurance mandate forces everyone to buy insurance, no matter what their income is, so they don't even have a provision for people who DO have enough money to not need insurance. So even that comparison makes the health insurance law fail on its merits.

[Juan_Bottom]

I was serious. I didn't mean for that to sound sarcastic. Though after a quick re-read I see what you mean.

What you did was find an actual problem within the bill and poured light onto it. What Palin does is not to look for problems, but rather she creates her own vague issues with the Obamas to attack.

The decisions a person makes about their own life affects themselves, not others, so you can't force them to buy insurance. You can't make a person buy anything simply because they're alive.

Either way, if you don't have Auto Insurance or Health Insurance, John Q. Public flips your bill. Hospitals cant turn away people who need urgent care.

Plus, it's still the government requiring you to purchase it. Which is an issue that so many people are attacking.

[Night Strike]

The decisions a person makes about their own life affects themselves, not others, so you can't force them to buy insurance. You can't make a person buy anything simply because they're alive.

Either way, if you don't have Auto Insurance or Health Insurance, John Q. Public flips your bill. Hospitals cant turn away people who need urgent care.

Plus, it's still the government requiring you to purchase it. Which is an issue that so many people are attacking.

The government also provides you with the privilege of using its roads. So you're saying the government also gives you the privilege to live, so you must pay for health insurance?

[BigBallinStalin]

I was serious. I didn't mean for that to sound sarcastic. Though after a quick re-read I see what you mean.

What you did was find an actual problem within the bill and poured light onto it. What Palin does is not to look for problems, but rather she creates her own vague issues with the Obamas to attack.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I guess I should be in politics....

(gun to the head.jpg)

[Phatscotty]

I was serious. I didn't mean for that to sound sarcastic. Though after a quick re-read I see what you mean.

What you did was find an actual problem within the bill and poured light onto it. What Palin does is not to look for problems, but rather she creates her own vague issues with the Obamas to attack.

You mean, like, politics???