(no subject)
Now, while Conservapedia isn't exactly famed for having a liberal, progressive, or even flexible or Zeitgeist-reflecting outlook, one would imagine a little post-election humility, à la John McCain, would be possible. Election coverage that minimised bias, for example, or at least didn't cling onto the blatantly-untrue idea that the Republican loss was somehow unfair or unpredictable. But apparently not.
They begin with laughable coverage of the candidate. Obama is named in full as a 'first-term Democratic senator from Illinois... [who was] allegedly born in Honolulu'. I'm not sure where else they were insinuating he was born. Personally, I always did think his references to being from Krypton merited further investigation, but perhaps that's just me. And if it wasn't enough that he's apparently some form of non-American, before the first paragraph's out we've already hit claims that 'an apparent Muslim, Obama could use the Koran when he is sworn into office', despite the same article later admitting that 'Obama was sworn into the US senate on a Bible'. Ten points for amateurism, Conservapedia.
This claim is further investigated before we even get into the main body of the article, with a full bulleted list devoted to substantiation of the idea, complete with an image of Obama in national Kenyan dress. While the whole item is far too ridiculous to analyse in full, some highlights include the idea that 'Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one'. Incidentally, if you happen to refer to Germany as Deutschland, you are also a fully-qualified Nazi.
We can cross off yet another square of our bingo cards in the second paragraph, as we learn that 'To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of Lenin'. An image of these can be found here, alongside an example of the Bauhaus movement which its design is inspired by. A quick Google search suggests this as an iconic Lenin poster. See the similarities? Perhaps my left-wing tendencies cloud my vision, but I couldn't.
If it's not enough already that Obama is evidently a Muslim Communist (I won't even bother pointing out the contradiction in terms there), he's also infiltrating the minds and consciences of otherwise good, clean, God-fearing Americans without them even noticing it, admittedly a masterpiece of an allegation in terms of giving the far-right something to get truly worried about. Take this gem: 'Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols.' You hear that, kids? Doctors said it, so it must be true.
Moving further down the article, we learn that illiteracy isn't just confined to the incumbent president, as we are told that 'when unable to read from prepared text he [Obama] often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet'. And yet I thought he was an intellectual elitist. Come on, Conservapedia. Pick a position, and stick with it.
The usual slander about his own mistakes regarding American history continues for a few sections, until once again we hit another deep vein of right-wing hatred: the idea that entering an educational establishment on your own merits is no longer the sole preserve of whites. We learn that 'he became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989', further adding to this as we progress through the article with the information that 'he [Obama] has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action'. Now, racial quotas and affirmative action are in use across the USA; such things aren't unheard of. But even the subtle mention of it serves to undermine anything positive that paragraph says about his achievements while in education, and picks out his ethnicity, leaving your average Conservapedia reader with an easy path to attack him by.
Even the theme of racial hatred doesn't seem simple enough for the writers to stick to. Jeremiah Wright's appearence in the text is inevitable, but his quotation deviates substantially from the party line that his church is a militant, black, anti-white propaganda machine. We are told that he is 'a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."' Does they sound like the words of a dangerous black terrorist to you? I don't think so.
We come to the most beautifully inaccurate part of the article so far when we reach here. We learn that 'John McCain's wife Cindy noted that Obama is running "the dirtiest campaign in American history."' Now, as well as Cindy McCain not exactly being an objective source for absolute truth, I realise that even with the best healthcare money can buy, the whole 'cyborg' thing probably impairs her facial recognition facilities a little. Um, Cindy? I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but the old white guy - that's McCain, honey. McCain. Not Obama. McCain. You know, the one you wake up next to every morning - or maybe you don't any more. I mean, there has to be a reason he chose Sarah Palin, huh?
At last, we can focus on the man's politics. We learn that Obama's votes in the Senate (admittedly, he does have a documented liberal voting record - but with the squabbling over a narrow section of centre ground that American politics seems to consist of, what does that mean?) are 'as that of a “Marxist leftist"'. Yes. I mean, Marxist economic theory (do these people even know what Marxism is? Would they recognise dialectical materialism if it walked up to them and slapped them in the face?) does seem to pervade his politics. I could have removed my eyeballs just so I didn't have to carry on reading at that point, but alas, duty prevails.
Later, we discover the shocking notion that Obama refers to the current president by his name. And sadly, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not joking. You'd never think that modern-day America could tolerate such foul abuse of common courtesy, or that anyone could even dare to utter the name of our hallowed leader. Or perhaps I'm missing something. Perhaps it's in a more 'He Who Must Not Be Named' sort of idea. Either way, evidently, it's vital to this election that 'Obama has disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'.
We then conclude this wonderfully unbiased description with an information box listing 'Liberal characteristics and traits', which include 'bias', 'deceit', 'denial', 'hypocrisy', the 'homosexual agenda' (how faaaaabulous!), 'myths', 'obfuscation' and 'redefinition', and yet bizarrely, 'friendship' and 'logic'. It seems that there's hope for us all.