Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
--C.S. Lewis--

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Fair And Balanced

Of course reporters are completely objective in covering Obama. Why do you ask?

Here's something to consider. When Sarah Palin was running on the Republican ticket, many ignored all the practical benefits for McCain, (drawing tens of thousands to rallies, millions in new donations, her gender, her reputation as a reformer, her youth, her charisma, etc.) and darkly implied that McCain chose her as some sort of dirty old man's fantasy fulfillment. The argument went on to imply that male voters supported her for many of the same reasons. As "proof" we were supplied with silly evidence like Rich Lowry's comment that Sarah Palin "winked at me" (which was in support of his observation that some politicians can project into your living room, not in support of the observation that she's super-hot), that McCain knew little of her before deciding to pursue her as VP, and the fact that her popularity was far higher among men (it's called the partisan gender gap geniuses...look it up). It was stupid and silly then, but now it looks even more ridiculous, because now we have people at the New York Times openly discussing Obama sexual fantasies, how the Obamas look like they "love sex", etc. Of course, it's perfectly natural and acceptable...healthy even, when it's the Obamessiah who is the recipient of adulatory fantasy.