Cannibals

Okay, look. The excuse that you’re only bringing up the dog thing because Obama’s “side” keeps attacking Mitt Romney for putting their dog on top of their car won’t wash any more. Just admit it: you want to circumscribe not only what it means to be a proper American, but what it means to be a proper boy. I mean for fuck’s sake, put a plate of anything in front of a “normal” spoiled six-year old American boy that isn’t one of the following: hot dogs; macaroni-and-cheese; or a hamburger — and “see what you get.” On the other hand, lock up a bunch of Americans for a week in a place without food and I’ll bet you it won’t take but an hour of hunger pangs before they start eating each other.

One more thing. No, two. I’m sure Korean-Americans who’ve visited their relatives in the old country and maybe eaten dog because yes they eat that there are glad they can now lop the “American” off their ethnic designation. The other thing is this: there’s a scene in the movie Little Big Man where the young white kid is brought into the Cheyenne encampment and is served a portion of dog meat. “Dog is pretty good,” he reflects in voice over. That’s right, Native Americans not only kept dogs, they ate them. Wow, I guess that means the white man was right to kill as many of them as he could! After all, dogs are sacred to “normal” six-year-old boys.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Cannibals

  1. I like to see it brought up repeatedly because it sends the Obama drones into a tailspin everytime.

    As far as eating dog, it’s not something I’d do but I really don’t give much of a d— what people in other countries do.

  2. I always thought a good tactic for getting boys to eat almost anything was to tell him it was something gross, like monkey brains, instead of vegetables.

    • When I was in junior high or so this YA book about a kid who ate worms on a dare came out. He ended up liking worms, as I recall.

    • It’s about stinking, moldy, rotten prejudices rising from the grave where I thought we’d buried them so yeah, I guess it is about zombies.

  3. The Obama eats dog thing first saw the light of day when his autobiography was published in 1995, 17 years ago. If you think that anti-Obama persons are only interested in being mean to brown people, why wasn’t it used during the 2008 campaign? Why hasn’t it been a staple of the spirited (spirited is the mild way to put it) criticism of Obama since then? Why did it crop up only after a truly juvenile effort was made to gin up phony outrage about Seamus the Mormon Setter?

    The Left has a tradition of arguing in bad faith, and ascribing the worst motives to the arguments of its’ opponents, as can be observed in the case of this stupid “Romney tortures dogs” meme, only here’s the difference–unlike every other time we try to engage the Left, this–is–fun. It’s one of the few times I remember when it’s their turn to scream unfair! unfair! It’s also easy to see which side has a sense of humor, and which doesn’t, if you compare Dogs Against Romney with Dogs Against Obama. I didn’t say it was an acceptable sense of humor, but the other side’s out for blood in this matter. They mean it.

    I think you are proceeding out of the best, most humane impulse, and winding up with a mischaracterisation. I think the motive you ascribe to those who are yukking it up might be a little unfair. Statistically speaking, there is without a doubt some who are what you claim making fun of Obama, for the reasons you claim. There’s no doubt they feel permitted. All of them? Are you sure?

    Why didn’t this all blow up before now? It’s not as if there aren’t plenty of us who viscerally loath the President of the United States.

    I don’t know, maybe nobody, who didn’t have a history of ecstatic fainting at Obama rallies, actually bothered to read that stupid book until now, and learned a cool new Obama Hate Fact. That might explain it.

    • Skimmmmm….

      Sorry, tl;dr about the election and the necessity of making fun of Obama 24/7. Because I don’t fucking care. It’s not the subject of this post. I only approved your comment so I could tell you I don’t fucking care about the “reasons” behind all of this. I care about something more important than some insignificant political skirmish that no one will remember or care about a few years from now. Here’s what I care about: turning the clock back to the good old (mostly imaginary, I’m afraid) days when being a Real American™ meant you had to live a very proscribed and restricted lifestyle. Guess what, that’s not the America I want to live in and if that means not giving a shit that the president ate some roast Fido when he was a kid, that’s a burden I think the country can bear.

  4. “Here’s what I care about: turning the clock back to the good old (mostly imaginary, I’m afraid) days when being a Real American™ meant you had to live a very proscribed and restricted lifestyle. Guess what, that’s not the America I want to live in and if that means not giving a shit that the president ate some roast Fido when he was a kid, that’s a burden I think the country can bear.”

    There’s your first two sentences, Guts, and they have the virtue of giving the smelly commenters a fighting chance to try and figure out what the subject of this post really is.

    • Oh come on. It’s obvious that the subject of my post is what I’ve been banging on for a while now: the mocking of Obama for something he did in his childhood, and the mocking of the Romney’s methods of transporting their pets, are all techniques used to control how people think about any deviation in behavior from an increasingly small and rigid norm. I live in a country that supposedly can handle the idea that everyone doesn’t think alike. I would like to keep on living in that country.

  5. Just admit it: you want to circumscribe not only what it means to be a proper American, but what it means to be a proper boy.

    Not. I think this only flies if we assume that people are genuinely aghast at the “sudden” revelation that (horrors!) Obama ate dog meat. Prolly had blood dripping down his chin, laughing the whole time, ta boot! [/snark]
    Few if any of the commentators who are having some fun with this are treating it as a genuine scandal. It’s fighting fire with fire, hyperbole with hyperbole. Yea, I agree, it’s silly & childish. But it’s, in a way, an outlet for expressing some of the same frustration you seem to be feeling. All these Dems with their “serious face” on, trying to suggest a fatal character flaw in Romney because of how he treated his dog years ago? The only rational response is to point and laugh. Which is what some people are doing. To me, it’s telling that they have to dig this hard to find something.

    I haven’t read a single article or blog seriously suggesting that Obama is sub-human, deranged, or Un-America for eating dog as a child in Indonesian. Only blogs that suggest people are suggesting it.

Comments are closed.