#1 Obama Pours Gasoline on the Racialist Fires
I have already heard enough about Obama single-handedly working to perpetuate racism from, of all people, Newt Gingrich. And the fact that I continue to hear more complaints from Fox and other right-wing news sources is, I guess, to be expected. But recently I read an article that focuses its attention on how Richard Land, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm condemns Obama and many other black leaders’ responses to Trayvon Martin’s death as “shameful.”
Particularly, attacking Obama for having a response that, supposedly, “poured gasoline on the racialist fires,” is a fallacy. I don’t think Obama’s comments and reactions were reprehensible, nor do I think Obama shamefully exploited Martin’s death by saying “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Obviously for a white man like Land to say this is a bit strange to begin with as he is not even part of the group that he is trying to advocate for. By undermining the opinions of prominent black figures, such as Reverend Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, Land is making himself out to look a bit irrational.
Land also goes on to say that the comments made by black figures other than Obama trying to use the Trayvon Martin case as an attempt to “try to gin up the black vote for an African American president who is in deep, deep, deep trouble for re-election.” These suggestions are ridiculous. Obviously, people–especially prominent political and social figures–who support Obama are going to try to help him and his campaign in any way that they can. But by painting the situation as dire and using phrases like “deep, deep, deep trouble” are going to give many readers the wrong impression. Not to mention that earlier in the article, the journalist portrayed Obama as some sort of anti-equality racist who was trying to spoil the progress of racial equality in the United States.
Overall the journalist, as well as Land himself because he is spouting this kind of rhetoric on his radio show, seems to be quite fond of fallacies. By painting the actions of Obama, Sharpton, Green, and other prominent black activists and social/political figures, as ‘shameful’ and calling them ‘ambulance chasers’ he is spreading the idea that these men did in fact do and say things that ought to be considered shameful and inappropriate by the population at large. This is simply an opinion, one with which I do not agree. Furthermore, suggesting that Obama is in ‘deep trouble’ for re-election is also problematic, as this depends on your political views as well as your partisan bias, which clearly (coming from Fox News) is not in support of Obama here. Not to mention that these comments are seriously harming the image of the Southern Baptist Convention (of which Land is a part of), and perpetuating notions that ” the SBC is a denomination of old, angry white men.” Overall this article leaves much to be desired, is ridiculous, and ultimately isfilled with fallacies.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/14/baptist-leader-criticizes-trayvon-martin-support/#ixzz1s2BzG1Ft
#2 Breaking News from Fox News: Obama is Willing to Risk Accusations of Socialism!
Sorry to continue talking about Obama, but since Fox News is rife with anti-Obama rhetoric, often backed up with fallacies, my second example is also an Obama fallacy piece. It seems to me that one of the Republican party’s favourite insults to throw at Obama is that he is a ‘socialist.’ First of all, I personally am not anti-socialist, so I don’t see it as much of an insult, but many Americans tend to liken Socialism to Communism, which just ends up opening a huge can of worms. Anyways, an article that I read had a fallacy blatantly sitting in the title: “Obama Willing to Risk Accusations of Socialism for Chance to Whack Romney’s Wealth.” Hm, okay. Well I am pretty sure that the vast majority of socialist accusations are going to be coming from the GOP itself. So that’s interesting.
The writer of this article also suggests:
The president is clearly conscious of the dangers involved his class-based line of attack against Romney. In February, he said his tax policies were animated by the teachings of Jesus Christ, and he has lately been mocking his detractors and putting words in their mouths: “wild-eyed socialism” etc.
Not only that, but trying to deny accusations of socialism, suggests the journalist, is not a good idea; “insisting that your plan is not “some grand scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another” or a “socialist dream,” draws attention to a negative. So it seems there is no way out. Either Obama is a socialist and admits to being one or he denies it and is portrays himself as a liar in denial? I’m not really sure what this writer is trying to say. This article is setting up Obama as one of two things, depending on how you interpret it, and neither one is good. The two options are mainstream republican criticisms of the President, and I am not a fan.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/12/obama-willing-to-risk-accusations-socialism-for-chance-to-whack-romneys-wealth/#ixzz1s2GFzIOo
Once again, Fox News, THANK YOU, for your insight.
Also, only remotely related to the topic, I thought this was cute: