About that "women are low-hanging fruit" crack...

[liz_marcs]

This is why Internet Memes sometimes Sucketh the Big Weenie:

For the past week or so, I've been seeing a meme going around that quotes this statement:

[W]omen are low-hanging fruit, though, in the terms of politics. You can reach up and say, 'I'm pro-choice, he's not.'

Then there follows a few more statements about how "I (LJ-owner-type-person) am not low-hanging fruit and I am insulted to be called thus. Therefore, I am going to prove that I am not low-hanging fruit to the ebil Democratic Party/Barak Obama/Both by (choose one of the following): voting for a third-party candidate/voting for McCain/staying home on election day and not voting at all."

The reason why it's not word for word is because there's some variation on the wording.

However, the following elements are all in place:

• The statement that "women are low-hanging fruit" for the Democratic Party, so none of the candidates have to work too hard to win over women
  
  
• The assumption that either Barack Obama , someone high up in his campaign, or some highly placed Democratic Party official said this statement
  
  
• To show that women are not low-hanging fruit, they're going to "punish" Obama and/or the Democratic Party come election time by voting Republican or not voting at all
  

There's just one eensy-meensy-teensy-tiny problem with the above meme:

The low-hanging fruit crack was actually said by Chris Matthews. And the person who said "I agree" to that statement was NBC's political director. (Link to Media Matters.)

In short, no one involved with the Democratic Party or Barack Obama's presidential campaign said the offending statements. So, would someone care to explain to me why anyone is holding Barack Obama and/or the Democratic Party responsible for something a television news "personality" and a NBC network employee said? Especially Tweety Matthews, who during Hillary Clinton's run really went all out to put the "pig" in "male chauvinist pig."

Look, you wanna hold Matthews and MSNBC responsible for that stupid statement? I'm all for it. Sign me up. In fact, let's get the party started over it.

But please stop holding Barack Obama and his campaign for every piece of stupid and/or sexist shit that hits the airwaves, especially when the person saying it is: 1) Not associated with his campaign and; 2) Isn't even acting as a spokesman for the Democratic Party. If Obama and his people say/do something stupid, by all means, hold 'em responsible, but at least hold 'em responsible for something they actually said, as opposed to something someone else said. Just sayin'.


And on that irritated note, I urge you to read this article from award-winning journalist David Neiwert: How right-wing crap polluted Democrats' political waters, which outlines the rightwingnut noise machine may have helped make the Democratic primary race look far more bruising than it actually was in the press, which has, in turn, created a "perception of reality" among the hard-core supporters of both Hillary and Obama.

So, in final note, kiddoes: Please do the world a favor and approach any and all bits of news and Internet memes with a healthy dose of skepticism during this political season.

Gracias muchly.



----------------
Now playing: Amy Winehouse - Rehab
via FoxyTunes   

Comments

[bellatemple]

God, every time I see another piece of political spin get thrown out into the world, I get a little bit more misanthropic. Case in point, a basic line graph of the increase in the price of gas, labeled with events and policies of the current congress (i.e. "2006 election day" or "Democratic Energy bill goes into effect") along the line. With absolutely no reference whatsoever to all the many, many other factors that could be, have been shown to be, and in fact, are contributing far more greatly to the price of gas than an attempt to find an alternative energy source before the entire American economy falls apart. And that's just what we've gotten from Congress (mostly the Republicans) today.

I look at this stuff, and I honestly wonder how any educated person, even one who benefited only from our less than stellar public school system, can just accept stuff like that at face value. And then I realize that people do, including people I work with and generally respect, be it through mental laziness or simple obliviousness, and I really, really, really just wanna hate people.

Fortunately, then I look over my flist and see other people pointing out these flaws, too, and I feel ever so slightly better. So, thanks!

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

*hugs you*

I can imaging that the whole "drill-drill-drill off shore, gently pump the crude" (sung to Row-Row-Row-Your-Boat) must be driving you absolutely buggy right now.

I don't claim to be at all overly familiar with the causes of the fuel spike, but even I know (commonsense-wise) that there are a whole lot of factors involved in spike in fuel prices, more than half of which are completely out of our control.

I mean, do you plan to tell China and India to stop using "our" oil? Or oil speculators from making good on their investments? Because that's the market at work, folks. (I know there's a lot more involved and that it's a complicated interlocking of events that is responsible, but if anyone actually thinks that a congressional "energy bill" is actually responsible for everything hasn't been paying all that much attention.)

Either way, I at least know that drilling ain't gonna do shit. And it sure as hell is not going to bring gasoline back down to $2 a gallon. Not in the short term, not in the long term.

I, uhm, have been hating people, too, today.

In any case, there's just no way anyone can be an expert at everything. However, I find that a little judicious use of common sense generally helps sift through more than half the crap.

[bellatemple]

(I know there's a lot more involved and that it's a complicated interlocking of events that is responsible, but if anyone actually thinks that a congressional "energy bill" is actually responsible for everything hasn't been paying all that much attention.)

Precisely my point. And don't get me started on the testimony about the US actually having domestic access to enough oil to keep us driving for "60 years", but (to paraphrase) "the evil, evil democrats want to keep it from the American people" -- the one that even actually points out that all this magical oil is in protected areas or international waters, you know, the places that we have a really good reason for not wanting to drill in -- okay, so I got myself started on that one. But even if drilling could stave off the oil crisis the way that person claimed, we're just going to be facing the same issue again in 60 years, only worse. What's wrong with planning ahead a little bit? You know, past the "summer travel season" or what-have-you (*rolls eyes at Hillary and McKain*)

In any case, there's just no way anyone can be an expert at everything. However, I find that a little judicious use of common sense generally helps sift through more than half the crap.

Or even just acknowledging that political commentary always has a spin -- no matter who it's coming from -- and that maybe you should ask some questions. But, then, I always seem to be expecting people to actually think. And constantly surprised and disappointed when they don't.