So, I open my email and there, staring me in the screen, is one from Gerard with the headline: “Michelle Obama Proposes Slaughtering Obese Children”! Now you know that got my attention.
The article is from Mark Donahue of The Daily Rash:
LAS VEGAS – First Lady Michelle Obama spoke over the weekend at a gathering of physicians and nutritionists at a Childhood Obesity forum at the Bellagio hotel. Sporting a sleeveless garment that allowed her toned arms to mesmerize awestruck attendees, the first lady regaled her admirers as a physically fit waitstaff served healthy hors d’oeuvres and United Nations approved spring water. The atmosphere at the forum was alive and festive with Brazilian guitar music and slender belly dancers. Before she took the podium, Mrs. Obama danced with Alec Baldwin and afterward beat him in an arm wrestling contest to the great delight of many.
Ok, sounds like any number of valid and responsible reports filed by one of our lapdogs. Then Mr. Donahue moves on to report on Lady M’s comments:
When Mrs. Obama was introduced she spoke eloquently about the necessity of nutrition and exercise in the lives of American children. She spoke compassionately about young people who over-eat to avoid dealing with problems and she spoke earnestly about her resolve to implement healthy lifestyle choices in public schools. It was when she began to speak about the morbidly obese that the first lady’s tone changed.
“She became angry, and justifiably so,” barked Jasper Cunningham, a dietitian attending the conference. “I don’t know how many hours a week I waste trying to convince profoundly large children to eat properly. It’s maddening! They don’t care what you say, they don’t care what they look like…” (snip)
“Sure, slaughtering them seems harsh. But if you take the time to really think it through, it’s actually more humane to extinguish the poor souls than prolong their agony isn’t it? Let’s be honest, it’s just going to get worse, and that’s not good for anybody.”
Did he just suggest that Lady M wants to slaughter children who refuse to loose their fat behinds? Yes, I think he did!
It starts to become obvious that we have to get the do nothing Congress to pass some common sense controls on what the “press” can say about Lady M, doesn’t it?
Now I don’t know about you, butt that does not sound like the rational, super intelligent, Fashion Icon and Busy Mom© (h/t: Cripes Suzette) I know. Let me explain.
First, if lady M really wanted to slaughter children with fat behinds, don’t you think she would be encouraging them to eat fatty foods and drink lots of sugary beverages? Don’t you think that she would be encouraging schools to serve fried chicken, chili fries and cheesey tater tots with every meal? Don’t you think she would call for the establishment of Kobe Kids clubs where little porkers could get Japanese massages to tenderize them and increase the marbling?
Me too. I think the whole thing is as phony as the story that a YouTube video sparked a spontaneous riot in Bengh...well, never mind.
So, just to clarify; this article – about Lady M proposing the consumption of children - is NOT real! That’s right. It’s called “satire” and The Rash isn’t even the first to use it in a story about eating children. That honor would go to Jonathan Swift and his Modest Proposal.
And since all good satire is based on rational argument, The Rash’s story isn’t even particularly good satire because, as I just demonstrated above (maximum marbling), this story makes no sense at all.
Big Guy offered up his own Modest Proposal this weekend, via his commencement address at the largest university in the perennial swing state of Ohio:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted.
Two problems here with Big Guy’s satire: as I just pointed out above, good satire has to be grounded in reality. Today’s college graduates grew up “incessantly” hearing voices warn of government being a sinister entity? He cannot be serious!! Has he not seen the public school pro-government curriculum for the past 25 years!?!
Students haven’t heard voices warning about tyranny lurking around the corner since the 60’s (1960’s, not the 1760’s). And that part where BO said “that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted” – well, I’m not a psychiatrist, butt that sounds like a classic case of projection to me.
And did you see what else he just did there? He just deflected the students’ concern away from finding a job to watching out for anarchists. This is good on several levels; it helps the new grads forget that they now have about $80,000 in student loans and no prospect for getting a good job. Despite Big Guy having focused on JOBS JOBS JOBS like a laser beam for 4 1/2 years now. And it makes the Party of “NO” – or at least the remnants of the Party of “NO” – appear to be anti-government obstructionists.
On the other hand, I do give Big Guy high marks in Irony 101 for this little piece of work. In one short paragraph he managed to:
- play the role of the wolf warning the flock to beware of other wolves in sheep clothes
- personifying that which the Founders most feared about government: immoral men subverting the powers of limited government for their own purposes
- blurring the edges around the historical fact that this country was founded by a revolution intended to throw off the tyranny of another government.
Wow! That’s impressive, even for a Constitutional Lawyer.
Now if he can just nail that spelling thing, he might be President someday.
Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network