I’ve come to the conclusion that the Guardian is on a mission to prove that a sizeable proportion of the people of America are, for want of a better phrase, completely fucking mad.
First there was the Clark County thing. If some American sent me a letter suggesting I vote for Tony Blair, or even Michael Howard, then I’d be quite pleased. It would be unlikely to swing my views, but it would at least make me more likely to go out and vote. And because I’m not an unbalanced whackjob, it wouldn’t lead me to send them hate mail.
So round one went to the Guardian. Round two started yesterday, with the Charlie Brooker piece mentioned below. Now, the pro-war British left didn’t exactly react to this in the spirit it was intended. But they remained reasonably friendly. Unsurprisingly, the American right was less so. Wankery, wankery, they’ve all got it, wankery.
I’ve already written the Guardian an email praising the column and asking them not to give into any pressure from its critics. I hope you’ll do the same – [email protected], and that they won’t give in.
And right-wing Americans – get a fucking grip, OK?
I wasn’t that keen on either the Cook County stunt or yesterday’s Charlie Brooker piece (though I’m normally a fan), but I completely agree with you that the hysterical over-reaction needs countering, as I can easily see Brooker getting scapegoated over this.
Wasn’t it Ann Coulter who urged the murder of Middle Eastern leaders a couple of years ago (along with the enforced conversion of their populations to Christianity)? Presumably the blogs you linked to were just as outraged over that, though I have to say I can’t find much evidence.
I haven’t fopund much in the way of condemnation of her statement that she wished Timothy McVeigh had driven a truck bomb into the New York Times, either.
Well, it looks as though the Brooker scapegoating has started – the Guardian has taken the column off their website (do a search for "Charlie Brooker" and the most recent link is last weekend’s column).
"the pro-war British left didn’t exactly react to this in the spirit it was intended": That’s an annoyingly sweeping generalisation, given that, for instance, we thought it was mildly funny (though unoriginal), while both Hak Mao and General Rubbish haven’t even bothered to comment on it.
It suits your purposes to pretend that you and your allies have a monopoly of humour, as of everything else that’s life-enhancing, good-hearted, etc., but you won’t be laughing when you’re hanging from a lamp-post after we’ve seized power …
John, under the circumstances, I thought that my letter to Mr. Brooker was quite civil. And yes, I think he’s a "wanker" as you folks say across the pond. And if you think that joking about assassinating our president is "jolly good humor," then you’re a wanker, too. Thanks for the link, chum. I’ve gotten all of one hit off it so far.
Cheers!
John, I told you that being Will’s favourite liberal wouldn’t count for anything after the revolution.
SIAW: Sorry. "Those of the pro-war left who publicly expressed an opinion at the time I wrote my piece". David T of Harry’s Place also thought the article was mildly amusing.
BCK: Less sincere apologies. Next time I slate your overreaction to something, I’ll give you a larger and more distinctive link.
SIAW,
There’ll be lamp-posts after your revolution?
How passe, not to mention all that terrible light pollution.
After my revolution John B and Backwards Dave will be composted. ;-)
The lamp-posts thing reminds me of this apocrophal(?) story. At a meeting of international revolutionaries a comrade says in his speech that… "In my country, come the revolution there won’t be enough lamposts from which to hang the oligarchy!" To which another of his international comrades replies…
"So either the standard of street lighting in your country is very poor or there’s an awful lot of oligarchy".
Boom Boom.
The coat thing I’ll do already….