Here’s the article from an extremely Progressive San Francisco blog. Here’s my distillation:
1. Liberals truly care about freedom, because they protested their hearts out over the illegal U.S. war in Iraq.
2. For all that screaming against the evil U.S. government, American liberals really weren’t risking anything because, unlike the Iranian people, they don’t need to fear their own government.
3. Iranians are now fighting for freedom; American citizens are watching basketball (and running riot afterward).
4. Both the Iranian candidates are equally bad, but it is impossible for each to have gotten 60% of the popular vote.
5. Some U.S. activists think we should take sides in this election for one or candidate or another.
6. Americans have no right to take sides because we’ve done bad things in Iraq, Iran and “Eastasia.”
7. Americans have no right to take sides because, unlike citizens in a totalitarian state who turn out in droves (to cast meaningless votes, I might add), Californians tend to ignore elections.
8. I (the writer of the article I’m summarizing here) think you Iranian people are great, but we Americans are just too flawed to offer you any support.
Number 8 is the liberal bottom line, isn’t it? We really want you Iranians to be free, but our penalty for past infractions is that we’re not allowed to support freedom elsewhere.
Does this writer’s line of thought strike you as the same thinking in which Barack Obama is probably engaged? Does this explain Obama’s apparent “concern,” coupled with an unwillingness to “meddle” that is so great, he won’t even offer moral support to those fighting for their rights in a totalitarian theocracy? Obama claims to be a Christian. Apparently his Bible not only says “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” it also says that, “He who has sinned is forever banned from joining with the righteous.” Who knew? That’s a lousy principle, if you ask me.
UPDATE: Trust a great satirist to nail precisely the same point.