[FrdmLvr]

What results from the use of the Rorschach Test in psychiatry? The paradox of the ink blots is that people with specific emotional states will “see” similar results in the same blot. Others, who do not share that emotional state, will not “see” that. What the test reveals is not the fact of what’s really on the paper. It reveals, instead, the emotional predilection of the patient. Now, with an understanding of what a Rorschach test is, we can judge the common use of that phrase with respect to Barack Obama and certain of his speeches.

First, the phrase applies because there is no content in Barack Obama’s speeches. Like cotton candy at a carnival, they are spun with energy and heat from a teaspoon of sugar into a quart of confection. But, the candy melts down to nothing when one delves for factual content. Like Rorschach’s blots, the candidate and his speeches have no objective meaning. The viewer’s conclusions come from the viewer, and nowhere else.

Second, because there’s no real content, there are no “right” or “wrong” responses. The only reason to track the viewers’ responses is to look for patterns. Do certain people with certain emotional predilections have common responses? If so, who are they, and what are their psychiatric states?

This is a very good explaination of the Obama worshipers vs. Obama phobes. Love that cotton candy analogy. Can I use it?

[Congressman Billybob]

Glad you liked the piece, and the analogy. Please feel free to reuse it as you choose. But remember to spell my name right. It's “Armor.” The folks who went into the meatpacking business in Chicago misspelled the name at Ellis Island. I've been bedeviled with that surplus “u” ever since.

John / Billybob