Because these link sausages are dripping with contempt. No need for <sarcasm> tags today.
- Let's start with the usual targets when contempt is called for: No, not baseball fans, politicians. Out here in fruit-and-nut country, the White Walkers (usually appearing on the ballot as "Republicans") can look forward to more humiliation, coming Real Soon Now. It's not just this state's Heffalumps, either; those from other states beg for humiliation.
More to the point, it's not limited to the Heffalumps. Establishment Jackasses are begging for humiliation, too. If anything about Heffalump electoral success this century stands out, it's that the only times Jackasses manage to get into major offices are when one or both of these circumstances apply:
- They've been selected by, and are supported by, dominant political machines
- They've not tried to be inoffensive to everyone
That last, however, doesn't apply to the Jackass Establishment under any circumstnces. (Support by a dominant machine does, all too often; just look at Chicago. And, as a demonstration that it's not just their party, a couple counties west or south of Cook Count.) Too often, "centrism" — especially the higher-in-the-system one looks — ends up really meaning "I got into power/have tagged along with someone in power, therefore everything is OK and we just need to tweak a few minor things." Because "change" is going to offend someone, and it's too easy to ignore those calling for change by dismissing them as extremists who don't know what they're talking about. You know, people like Dr King and Malala Yousafzai and Dr Christou.
- Well, I suppose I should express some contempt for royal families, as both a counterpoint to and continuation of the contempt for politicians. "Utter obliviousness" would be an improvement, whether we're talking about Iran, Norway, or Blighty (and even the idiocy of those covering the English royals — in answer to the headline, "1645–49" comes to mind rather quickly). Some royalist-lights can't even see the irony in their chosen bylines — complaining about the faults of imperialism sound a bit hollow coming from a byline offering homage to one of the first post-Roman imperialists.
- These days, no spewing of contempt is complete without going after the current US administration. On the one hand, they rationalize arresting a journalist by claiming that he had helped plan a perfectly legal, nonviolent protest demonstration. Umm, doesn't arresting someone for participating in planning sort of require that what is being planned is illegal? If that isn't asking for contempt, this certainly is — yeah, a lawyer actually partially, somewhat belatedly, doing her professional duty. And the less said about international law, the less annoyed (!) those of us who conformed our conduct to its (actually rather minimal) requirements will be. At least until we pick up another newspaper, or browse the web…
Since I'm no longer subject to Article 88, I'm not liable for any contemptuous words — or links to contemptuous pictures — about the current President of the United States. Maybe, however, that picture is accurate in another sense: By approving a depiction of the Obamas as monkeys, maybe he thought he was complimenting them by implying that they're more evolutionarily advanced than he is. Or than politicians in general are. Which is pretty tone-deaf… and about what I expect from someone who does not, himself, qualify as a "very fine person" — however one takes that quotation and later use/misuse/whatever.