Blooberfleeg. Let me explain.
I was reading a Glenn Greenwald post describing about how the right-wing code words regarding Obama's win are already flying, and in that, he linked to a Jon Swift post summing up the pundit's theories as to why Obama won. Apparently leftists only voted for Obama for a sense of smug superiority about voting for an African-American, the fact that he may have been the best candidate be damned.
Of course that's what they think, since pundits' worldview is some kind of warped Randian philosophy where everyone is solely governed by self-interest, without the great graphics and gameplay of Bioshock. But what did shock me is that when I did link out to one of the rightwing blogs in the post and read the original the article said that Obama was unqualified to be president.
That's right. Apparently being President requires qualifications. And a quick Google search saw this insult leveled at Obama from the right AND the left.
To quote Dame Judi Dench, have you lost your collective motherfucking mind?
PLAYOFFS??? Sorry, I mean UNQUALIFIED??? In 2008, are we as a nation actually saying that a candidate for President is unqualified? Sorry, writers, we have officially lost that privilege. I know that only a third of us wants to remember who is sitting in the White House right now, but look at him. Really.
THAT'S our President. And someone ELSE is unqualified.
Heh. No.
Barack Obama is most definitely qualified to be President. So are the other Democratic candidates. And compared to He-Who-I-Cannot-Name-Without-Gagging, God help me for saying this, but every single Republican candidate is qualified. Good? Lord, no. But just as qualified.
In fact, the term "qualified" now has lost its meaning without the proper context. If writers are going to use that term, they should proceed it with the following.
While I personally understand that the following statement only has a modicum of truth if you completely ignore the stroke-causing idiocies of the semiliterate and astoundingly corrupt occupant of the White House since January 2001, Candidate X is unqualified to be President.
And since that's a mouthful, let me steal a rhetorical device from Conan O'Brien. In the book Live From New York, Conan talks about that all stories about a writer that people would tell started with "So and so is a wonderful guy, works hard, intelligent, funny, and so on, BUT", so to save time, he invented a word, chipple, which meant the following so people could get to the meat of the story.
In the same vein, I propose:
Blooberfleeg, Candidate X is unqualified to be President.
So pundits, if you're going to talk about a candidate's qualifications, please start your sentence with blooberfleeg. It's the only way to ensure your column will be taken seriously.
Of course that's what they think, since pundits' worldview is some kind of warped Randian philosophy where everyone is solely governed by self-interest, without the great graphics and gameplay of Bioshock. But what did shock me is that when I did link out to one of the rightwing blogs in the post and read the original the article said that Obama was unqualified to be president.
That's right. Apparently being President requires qualifications. And a quick Google search saw this insult leveled at Obama from the right AND the left.
To quote Dame Judi Dench, have you lost your collective motherfucking mind?
PLAYOFFS??? Sorry, I mean UNQUALIFIED??? In 2008, are we as a nation actually saying that a candidate for President is unqualified? Sorry, writers, we have officially lost that privilege. I know that only a third of us wants to remember who is sitting in the White House right now, but look at him. Really.
THAT'S our President. And someone ELSE is unqualified.
Heh. No.
Barack Obama is most definitely qualified to be President. So are the other Democratic candidates. And compared to He-Who-I-Cannot-Name-Without-Gagging, God help me for saying this, but every single Republican candidate is qualified. Good? Lord, no. But just as qualified.
In fact, the term "qualified" now has lost its meaning without the proper context. If writers are going to use that term, they should proceed it with the following.
While I personally understand that the following statement only has a modicum of truth if you completely ignore the stroke-causing idiocies of the semiliterate and astoundingly corrupt occupant of the White House since January 2001, Candidate X is unqualified to be President.
And since that's a mouthful, let me steal a rhetorical device from Conan O'Brien. In the book Live From New York, Conan talks about that all stories about a writer that people would tell started with "So and so is a wonderful guy, works hard, intelligent, funny, and so on, BUT", so to save time, he invented a word, chipple, which meant the following so people could get to the meat of the story.
In the same vein, I propose:
Blooberfleeg, Candidate X is unqualified to be President.
So pundits, if you're going to talk about a candidate's qualifications, please start your sentence with blooberfleeg. It's the only way to ensure your column will be taken seriously.
posted by sixthdoctor at 10:52 AM
|
<< Home