By now, even non-football fans have probably heard about Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman. Sherman behaved obnoxiously after the Seahawks defeated San Francisco in the NFC Championship January 19th, boasting on camera and screaming insults at one of his vanquished opponents.
There were mitigating circumstances and the incident would have merely been amusing and forgettable — if Sherman had not tried to silence his critics by accusing them of racism. Called a thug for his thuggish behavior, Sherman declared that the epithet was "the accepted way of calling somebody the N-word nowadays." It was an egregious example of this go-to strategy for avoiding censure.
And, of course, it's nonsense. If anyone should be insulted by the use of the word 'thug,' it's people from India. The term derives from the Thugs of that nation, whose religious practices included garroting innocent travelers then robbing their corpses. This quaint native custom was cruelly extinguished by 19th century British occupiers in one of their typical acts of imperialist hauteur. Oh, the ravages of colonialism!
In any case, I would never want to risk losing the good opinion of loud-mouthed leftists who try to muzzle plain speech through racial bullying, so I'll refrain from calling a thug a thug. Instead, I'll call a thug a Sherman.
What then exactly is a Sherman? To me, a Sherman is anyone of any race who lacks a basic sense of sportsmanship and fair play. A Sherman treats his opponents as enemies. He uses intimidation and even violence to cow his competition. He corrupts the very nature of the game he plays by failing to accept the rules that make the game what it is.
President Barack Obama is a Sherman — and he is running a government by Shermanry.
This was true long before Tuesday's soporific State of the Union address, in which the president Shermanishly declared he would continue to try to subvert the Second Amendment right to bear arms "with or without congress" and impose his economic policies "without legislation." He has already essentially repealed laws by fiat as when he ordered the Justice Department not to uphold Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act and engineered the release of illegal immigrants awaiting deportation. His continual amendment-by-whim of the Affordable Care Act is another case in point.
Under Obama's watch, the IRS has targeted ordinary Americans whose Tea Party groups oppose administration policies. Most recently, the tax gatherers have seen fit to harass the harmless Hollywood fellowship Friends of Abe, of which I'm a member.
The White House hounded Fox News reporter James Rosen and the Associated Press for ordinary journalistic activity. They arranged the imprisonment of a nobody filmmaker in order to cover their own mishandling of the Benghazi crisis. After maneuvering House Republicans into a government shutdown, they ordered unnecessary site closures specifically designed to increase the pain and inconvenience to Americans. What sort of president purposely causes citizens hardship to win his political point?
Those journalists who have shrugged off and explained away these activities, or buried the stories on back pages or given them short shrift on air, need to imagine for a second how they would have reacted had George W. Bush been half so Shermanesque. Think back to the hysteria that ensued when W's cuddly Press Secretary Ari Fleischer scolded comic Bill Maher for some ugly remarks he made shortly after 9/11. "Fear" was being "wielded as a weapon against Americans by their own government," cried left wing columnist Frank Rich. And others wailed about Fleischer's "chilling effect" on free speech.
But Obama's sustained assault on not only free speech but due process has raised only the occasional squeak from the press. Is that simply because he's leftist and they're leftist, he's Democrat and they're Democrat?
Or is it that after years of their own Sherman-like attempts to silence conservatives with bogus accusations of racism, they have internalized the foul tactic and intimidated themselves? Is it possible the media are soft on this mean and lawless administration because the president's skin happens to be brown?
Is that why they're afraid to call a Sherman a Sherman?