Sunday, April 11, 2010

Comment on PJM, Ed Driscoll:
"SNL Mocks Obama With Just
A Soupcon Of Anti-Semitism"

It is a twofer. It both demeans the Jews and offers a controlled shot at Obama. As an anchor to windward there is not to much risk now in offering a criticism of Obama who is sinking from lightworker into the status of just another greasy politician from Chicago. The important thing is that it is not a criticism of Obamism as a political movement or of the left wing ideology he fronts for. If SNL does a skit with Obama played by someone in a monkey mask with people in uniforms giving him one armed raised high salutes then we could call it a sea change.

The SNL crowd are on board with most of Obama's social agenda. The fact is that is all that counts to most of them. The policy issues are just passing affectations. Incandescent bulbs or curly bulbs or nuclear power or cash for clunkers all make their eyes glaze over. The consensus among the progressive class that the SNL viewership desperately want to be part of is hostile to Judeo-Christian culture, because it is the "Daddy Culture" that judges them. They are enthusiastic towards all the alternatives. This is the Globe-Trekker view of the Third World, without giving the rest of us even the veneer of even handedness on the TV show and without having to actually learn about any civilization and make an informed comparison. So the idea of ridiculing Jews, as representatives for corporate interests and the beastly Benjamin Netanyahu, this years stand in for Chimpymchalliburtonbushitler, is easy to slide by the SNL viewers. That includes the viewers who are working in corporations and even includes viewers who are, or rather whose parents are, Jewish. Doing so in a manner that allows for plausible deniability is a minimum to expect from people who are trained professionals.

(the original at PJM was truncated after the 3rd sentence)
Why was my comment truncated here? Fortunately I saved a copy onto my blog but still to do this, to potentially destroy a contribution that is not offensive or a violation of the terms given above is both arbitrary and a little frightening. What is the point behind this Mr Driscoll? Words matter when they are heard or read. If you solicit comments there should be a reason for truncating, editing or deleting them.

No comments: