October 24, 2004

INVECTIVE DIRECTED

Charlie Brooker, writing in The Guardian -- the newspaper that was shocked by "the volume and pitch of the invective directed our way" in the wake of Operation Clark County -- calls for the murder of George W. Bush:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Working for The Guardian, most likely.

(Via reader Molly Richardson and blogger Scott Burgess, who has contact details for Charlie)

UPDATE. The idiot Brooker explains internet comedy:

"You do have to be fairly unsubtle," says Brooker. "You have to convince people quickly that's it's a good thing to hang around, which lends itself to sledgehammer tactics. The problem with instant publishing is that writers tend to get carried away and not edit themselves."

Apparently The Guardian doesn't have any editors, either.

UPDATE II. Reader Arty sees the humour in Brooker’s piece (now deleted from The Guardian’s archives, but still available here) and offers a similar gag:

Somebody flies a plane into the Guardian headquarters and the bastards are all burning or being crushed alive. Hundreds of the fuckers, from the publisher down to the cockroach-office-support-staff. Burning! Burning! like only leftist shitbags can burn. Charlie jumps out of his office window rather than get burned but spectators throw him back inside. (now here's the funny part) It's take-your-kid-to-work day at the guardian.

I bet that one would crack up the London leftists. I'll even give it to Charlie to use in his next 'column'.

UPDATE III. Brooker apologises.

Posted by Tim Blair at October 24, 2004 05:53 AM
Comments

Working for The Guardian, indeed.

As editors, no doubt.

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at October 24, 2004 at 06:00 AM

The entire civilized world praying for his defeat, huh? Well, Im civilized and am praying for GWB reelection. Of course, I actually BELIEVE in the God to whom I pray, so I'm too unsophisticated for the Guardian crowd to consider credible.


And what, pray tell,is Sods law?

Posted by: debbie at October 24, 2004 at 06:06 AM

That guy's harsh. Wonder why he doesn't just take on the roll he's wishing for.

Posted by: SleepyInSeattle at October 24, 2004 at 06:07 AM

oh, and Brooker should be expecting a visit from the Secret Service soon............

Posted by: debbie at October 24, 2004 at 06:10 AM

dedbbie- It appears to be Murphy's Law.
BBC on Sod's Law
Marky's Guide to Sod's Law

I'm not exactly sure why it would be that Murphy's Law would disprove the existence of God. Wouldn't it be more likely to prove the existence of a higher power that either:
1. Had a great sense of humor, or
2. Hates us all very, very deeply?

I'm thinking 2, with "us" being replaced by "the Left." *cue evil laughter*

Posted by: Flakbait at October 24, 2004 at 06:17 AM

I see you can type a wee bit faster than I can, as I was just about to send you an e-mail on this very subject.

This is totally outrageous. If The Guardian thought Operation clark County garnered "eye-wateringly unpleasant" reaction, they ain't seen nothing yet!

Posted by: Duane at October 24, 2004 at 06:22 AM

John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Lemme guess, his next column laments the downfall of Adolph Hitler?

Posted by: Harlan Pepper at October 24, 2004 at 06:27 AM

John Hinckley is prime Guardian columnist material, if only the editors can get him sprung from the calabozo and stop his thorazine. Not sure about the other two. Historical accounts paint them as ideological crusaders, but not as mumbling psychotics. You need both qualities to really thrive at the Guardian.

Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2004 at 06:28 AM

Flakbait — I think it's more #1, but in line with Robin William's claim that the Almighty does weed. I mean, the platypus? "Hey, Darwin, fuck you!"

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 24, 2004 at 06:35 AM


I sent this despicable article in the Guardian to a friend of mine who is undecided.

This is part of the reply he sent me this afternoon:

"That's it. I am voting Bush."


The pathetic Guardian proves yet again to be a good vote-getter for the Republicans....

Posted by: JohnD at October 24, 2004 at 06:41 AM

The SwiftVets have picked this up as well. We will barrage them with E-Mails as we did the last time. But it would perhaps be better if some of our Vets paid them a little visit. These people are idiots.

Posted by: Fort Campbell at October 24, 2004 at 06:46 AM

Here's what The Guardian should do: get a database together of the president's itinerary and give out one by one the locations, dates, and times where Bush is supposed to be to people who sign up with their email addresses. Each person is to attempt to assassinate the president at the location and time assigned to them. It's the power of the web! Call it Operation Texas Book Depository.

That writing letters to Ohio voters thing was for suckers anyway.

Posted by: Brian O'Connell at October 24, 2004 at 06:56 AM

Sainted blair!
this low life is advocatimg the murder of the american president!that's it !i'm not even givng tge guardian the privilage of being ysed in my tiolet any more , its back to the SMH.

Vote for kerry Vote for defeat and humiliation of the American people.
Vote for the self made "millionaires" kerry heinz combo and their nostalgia for humiliation and the hands of "cultured europe:"
oh deary deary! watch thoe eurowhips come out and see them squirm with pleasure if bush loses.
and co back to the policies of the pasty, pockmarked Jimmy Carter, the man who put the "R" into iran and brought you modern terrorism.
Ah the life of the rich and famous!
except these two never had to work for a single cent.
kerry is nothing but an ageing "courreur de dote"
they know the price of everything and the value of nothing and that includes freedom


soon you[ll all be learning french at school whils the french will be learning arabic

Posted by: davo at October 24, 2004 at 06:58 AM

Well, it's that time again... don't hurt me, Andrea:

Here is a mailing list to express your appreciation to the Guardian for its journalistic excellence. Just cut and paste into the address box of your e-mail

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 24, 2004 at 07:09 AM

O, Jill Dando's anoymous assassin, where are you now that we need you and do you do hack comedian columnists, too?

Posted by: Laurence Simon at October 24, 2004 at 07:09 AM

John Hinckley, was tied to both neo-nazi's and an
Iranian splinter group. Oswald was a marxist, who
hung around Czarist and anti-castro exiles, for cover; and one does recall he first planned to hit
Nixon

Posted by: narciso at October 24, 2004 at 07:17 AM

un
fucking
believeable

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 24, 2004 at 07:20 AM

Is this guy a closet Klan-lover or is he just pro-slavery? John Wilkes Booth shot the man who brought us the Emancipation Proclamation, much as Bush has brought freedom to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their thanks is for this British wanker to wish them assassinated.

Does BDS know no limits?

Posted by: Melissa at October 24, 2004 at 07:30 AM

my emails have been sent already, asking if Charlie Brooker was indeed advocating the assassination of a US president, and if so, had The Guardian no decency at all? I know the answer to the question, but I thought I'd be polite and give them a chance to respond. No doubt it'll be some leftoid weaselspeak trying to get out from under this fresh internet hell about to descend on them.

Posted by: Rebecca at October 24, 2004 at 07:37 AM

Ha ha ha ha ha. This is one of the best columns I've read for weeks.

Of course, you forgot the best part:

(on Bush) "Quite frankly, the man's either wired or mad. If it's the former, he should be flung out of office: tarred, feathered and kicked in the nuts. And if it's the latter, his behaviour goes beyond strange, and heads toward terrifying. He looks like he's listening to something we can't hear. He blinks, he mumbles, he lets a sentence trail off, starts a new one, then reverts back to whatever he was saying in the first place. Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement."

Fucking briliant.

Posted by: Justin Eagle at October 24, 2004 at 07:41 AM


Oh, I get it -- it's funny to joke about killing your political opponents! Gosh, next time I see some protestors, I'll make jokes about not having a PLA T-62 main battle tank around when you need it. Accuse us of crushing dissent! I'll show you crushing of dissent. Get it, CRUSHing!

HAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHA! HAHAHA!

What a shithead.

Posted by: Andrew at October 24, 2004 at 07:47 AM

(snicker)

Oh Andrea, I can see you're hurt...

Bush is just a political opponent, he's a fundementalist killer, kinda like Bin Laden. And if he wasn't killing, but just saying stupid shit on TV, it would be funny.

Posted by: Justin Eagle at October 24, 2004 at 07:56 AM

Everytime Justin Eagle posts I feel the polls swing towards Bush. Ahhhh...

Posted by: Sortelli at October 24, 2004 at 07:58 AM

"Fucking Briliant" (sic)--Justin the goof.


Posted by: JDB at October 24, 2004 at 08:00 AM

[Comment deleted by the Management.]

Posted by: Justin Eagle at October 24, 2004 at 08:05 AM

Anyone else unable to access the Guardian website?

Posted by: julie at October 24, 2004 at 08:08 AM

As I just commented to Scott Burgess, someone should send a copy of this column to everyone in Clark County.

PS Same here Julie - I can't access the Guardian at the moment either.

Posted by: Natalie Solent at October 24, 2004 at 08:20 AM

He's still smarting from Charles I, probably. Americans traditionally vote on their leaders.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at October 24, 2004 at 08:26 AM

Natalie: I think the Guardian has been Freeped! Maybe, this is what they need. Calling for assassins is not protected speech. If the Guardian is going to continue acting irresponsibly, if not criminally, they shd be shut down.

Posted by: julie at October 24, 2004 at 08:45 AM

Who's this guy?
Writing for the which?
What's this all about?
Is this something we're supposed to be interested in?
Has anybody been interested in whatever it is before this?
I'm missing something.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at October 24, 2004 at 08:48 AM

If it is acceptable for the Guardian to call for the assassination of the US head of state, is it acceptable to call for the assassination of Guardian editors.

You reap what you sow. The Guardian is sowing the wind.

They really dont understand what they are doing.

Posted by: Warrren at October 24, 2004 at 08:50 AM

Sometime a long, long ago in Britain, maybe after the war, someone remarked that only a British government, on an island surrounded by fish and made almost entirely of coal, could contrive to produce a shortage of both.

This had to be the time that the Guardian reached its zenith. With little need for paper to ignite a coal fire and few fish to be wrapped, this piece of crap got a foothold and has been with us ever since. The only other use was prohibited by the difficulty of getting ink stains out of your underwear.

Posted by: Rhod at October 24, 2004 at 08:53 AM

So, how will this end? By some dumb lukewarm apology hissed from behind clinched green teeth.

Posted by: julie at October 24, 2004 at 08:59 AM

Bush has nothing to worry about. The Guardian is a piss-ant Quicki-Shopper rag for Lefties in serious need of a free idea and a word with more than one syllable.

The day that an epicene Guardian columnist, or friendly reader, develops the balls to fight anything more aggressive than head lice will never come.

Posted by: Gannymede at October 24, 2004 at 09:01 AM

Julie:

C'mon. The NHS Dental Police prohibit the clenching of dentures made of plaster and Chicklets.

Posted by: Rhod at October 24, 2004 at 09:11 AM

"So, how will this end? By some dumb lukewarm apology hissed from behind clinched green teeth."

Ewww. Probably right, though.

Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2004 at 09:12 AM

This is very serious and i fear a precedence may now be set with someone calling for the assasination of Guardian Editors. Please help stamp out this incitement to murder.

Forward your complaints regarding the Guardian to the Press Complaints Commission

1 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JB

Help Line: +44 20 7353 3732
Switchboard: +44 20 7353 1248
Facsimile: +44 20 7353 8355
Textphone: +44 20 7583 2264
E-mail: complaints@pcc.org.uk
Scottish Help Line: +44 131 220 6652
Welsh Help Line: +44 29 2039 5570
24 hour Press Office line: +44 7669 195539

Posted by: Bernard at October 24, 2004 at 09:13 AM

Since the Guardian's Charlie Brooker seems to be appealing for the murder of the leader of major British ally, perhaps the MI5 should be made aware of it. They have a handy online form for reporting possible threats.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page133.html

Posted by: James Jones at October 24, 2004 at 09:26 AM

I still can't access the Guardian article, but I did get through to their blog page where one can leave a comment(s). Go for it.
Guardian

Posted by: julie at October 24, 2004 at 09:27 AM

"Oh Andrea, I can see you're hurt..."

This was posted after a comment from a completely different person named Andrew. Justin Eagle is not only a shithead, he's a stupid shithead. And he is also banned again.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 24, 2004 at 09:31 AM

Who wants to join in my petition to have "Justin Eagle" assassinated?

I think the world, and certainly this blog, would be much better off.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 09:31 AM

By the way, didn't the Guardian already propose this?

Ah yes, here:

Gee, they must be low on ideas to rehash this little piece of stupidity.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 09:33 AM

actually, as my bride pointed out to me this is somewhat of a backhanded compliment: in this fellow's view bush is the equal of lincoln, kennedy, and reagan. not bad company, really.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 24, 2004 at 09:33 AM

By the way, "Justin Eagle's" IP address (162.84.231.59) resolved to Brooklyn, NY. I went ahead and not only banned that IP, but the entire range of IPs above that. Thus it is possible someone else using Verizon's internet service from the Brooklyn area will not be able to post a comment here. Well, they can blame a troll for that.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 24, 2004 at 09:39 AM

Egads, Quentin! You're right! The article has been removed as no doubt the Brooker one will be. But one week later do pull the same dumbass stunt. Let's see. In approx one week 2 Kill Bush and 1 interference with our election process.

Posted by: julie at October 24, 2004 at 09:40 AM

Mr. Bingley: I have also come to that conclusion about the Bush-haters.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 24, 2004 at 09:41 AM

Hm. The Guardian's site does seem to be down. Well fortunately I saved the article with the, er, compliments to Spleenville. I didn't have time to save this one though.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 24, 2004 at 09:44 AM

Make that: But one week later they pull the same dumbass stunt

Posted by: julie at October 24, 2004 at 09:46 AM

well, now i know why i've always been kind of sweet on you, andrea ;)

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 24, 2004 at 09:51 AM

Is there a cached copy of the article anywhere? Thanks.

Posted by: Bubba at October 24, 2004 at 10:03 AM

Y'know Mr. Bingley and Andrea,

The Lincoln/JFK/Reagan link also occured to me.

So too did the nexus of morally bankrupt thespians (Booth), frustrated loner Leftists (Oswald), and mentally deranged solipsists (Hinckley).

Who today are Bush, Blair, and Howard's main domestic opposition?

And let's not forget the devout Palestinian Muslim Sirhan Sirhan, outraged by RFK's support of Israel.

The FBI and Secret Service had better be on the ball.

Posted by: JDB at October 24, 2004 at 10:04 AM

Maybe we should let Hinckley out of jail, give 'im a free plane ticket to London, and tell 'im the Guardian's executive editor is making it big time with Jodie Foster.

Posted by: Susan at October 24, 2004 at 10:09 AM

Hey, the Guardian's back up.

Someone commenting at The Daily Ablution helpfully linked to this Charlie Brooker fact sheet. And Susan, I hear he's dating Jodie Foster.

Posted by: Brian O'Connell at October 24, 2004 at 10:20 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html

This link worked to bring up the whole article at the time when I posted it. Somebody copy it or mirror it before they take it down. Don't let the Guardian get away with hiding this thing.

Posted by: Alvin at October 24, 2004 at 10:23 AM

One would think that a Kerry supporter like our dear Guardian writer would think twice before bringing Lee Havrey Oswald into the conversation. Don't want start a JFK assassination jinx...

Posted by: Charlie at October 24, 2004 at 10:27 AM

Gosh Andrea, you're right -- I am a turd-sucker to the nth degree.

[Comment altered to a more pleasing form by the Management. Keep posting, loser, and find your comments turned into something "different."]

Posted by: Justin Eagle at October 24, 2004 at 10:28 AM

I heard that the Guardian people like to send and receive email. So, here is a list for sending.

[This list has been posted here at least twenty times so I am removing it. The Management.]

Posted by: Tom Fitzpatrick at October 24, 2004 at 10:31 AM

One of the contributors at Littlegreenfootballs posted a copy of the column just in case...

Posted by: Ernie G at October 24, 2004 at 10:31 AM

Whoa, somebody disagreed, and so you banned his whole IP range.

This is the free speech that Bush '04 supporters are aiming for?

Makes me glad I don't live in the US.

- A very scared foreigner.

NB: The Guardian article is by a weekly writer in their TV Guide pullout, not the main newspaper - nor is it editorial comment. Merely the opinions of one guy.

Posted by: Tom at October 24, 2004 at 10:41 AM

"- A very scared foreigner."

Good. Stay that way.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 24, 2004 at 10:45 AM

The events in the US elections have global repercussions, especially with UK foreign policy tracking the US so closely.

This works both ways - I'm sure my Conservative friends here are hoping against a Kerry victory just as you are.

The only reason I posted was to point out a discrepancy in the logic you appear to have used, and to tidy up the facts surrounding the Guardian article.

Posted by: Tom at October 24, 2004 at 10:50 AM

Tom:

Don't pull that "oooh, what about free speech?" crap on this one. If that person wants to post nasty comments, he/she/it is free to get his own site and do so. This site is privately owned and run, so the owners can do whatever they damn well please with it.

And FYI, if the column appeared in any part of The Guardian, it is The Guardian that should get hammered. Trying to play it off as some lonester ain't cutting it.

Glad you don't live here too, if you don't like it.

Posted by: Glen at October 24, 2004 at 10:51 AM

Ya know, if ever there was an obnoxious asshole whose posts should be disappeared completely (not just replaced with a removal notice), it's that sociopath Justin. Don't even give that little leech the satisfaction of seeing his name on the screen.

Posted by: PW at October 24, 2004 at 10:52 AM

Plenty of folks have disagreed on this list, Tom. It's been my observation that they only get banned when they're abusive about it. Some people don't know the difference. I'm glad Andrea does.

And I don't give a shit where the article was in The Smarmian. SOMEBODY approved it.

Posted by: suellen at October 24, 2004 at 10:52 AM

Come on Tim, this is just some of the nuanced British irony that us Yanks and you Aussies are too simplistic to appreciate.

When Charlie Booker says, "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?", he's making a sly reference to Republican attempts to suppress the black vote by keeping them away from the voting booths as John Wilkes wanted to do; his support for John Kerry, as Oswald killed another former senator from Massachusetts who had been elected president; and, um, I guess Hinckley must be rhyming slang for something related to a respectful approach to democratic elections and the will of the people. I mean, if he was talking about murdering US presidents, why is John Hinckley Jr in this list instead of Leon Czolgosz?

Either that or Mr. Parker is a tendentious, mayhem-seeking lowlife who wishes the US to imitate the good old days of 18th century British elections like those depicted in William Hogarth's prints.

Posted by: charles austin at October 24, 2004 at 10:52 AM

I'm curious, Justin Eagle ( very clever)... as I live in Queens, I know it's 8 PM on a Saturday night as you post your vitriol. I'm wondering why you're sitting home, posting foul mouthed rants you KNOW no one on this site agrees with, instead of particpating in conversations with people who share your views. How about a girlfriend, or boyfriend ( I'm open minded) Don't you have any friends to go out with? I'm a middle aged woman, but if I was young like you, I'd be out. Maybe that's why you are so angry, go out and have some FUN! This is silly, and sad, for you.

Posted by: Pam at October 24, 2004 at 10:55 AM

Whoa, somebody disagreed, and so you banned his whole IP range.

He's been banned repeatedly before, and been told about that. Incidentally, I believe in several European countries Justin would have exposed himself to the possibility of criminal investigations by now, since Andrea has taken reasonable steps to prevent his access to Spleenville, which he intentionally keeps circumventing. I wonder what U.S. law has to say about that...

And as Glen said, don't even try to peddle that "attack on free speech" nonsense. I'm not American, but even I know that doesn't apply to speech on private property. Perhaps you'd enjoy a little informative reading about the U.S. Constitution?

Posted by: PW at October 24, 2004 at 10:58 AM

So Tom, being in the TV section excuses incitment to murder? I thought that was a crime in Britain, where I am guessing you live, although I remember reading that when Muslims were rioting and calling for the death of Salman Rushdie the police stood by and did nothing about such incitments. Too much trouble, or possibly too dangerous, to interfere.

Andrea is a private citizen who owns spleenville. If she wants to ban somebody she can. It's no more interference with free speech than banning a burglar from entering your home is interfering with said burglar's freedom of movement. The First Amendment applies to governments, not individuals.

What are you scared about? That under Bush the US will destroy the jihadi terrorists before they can blow up the Houses of Parliament?

Posted by: Michael Lonie at October 24, 2004 at 11:00 AM

Pam - I personally find talking to people who don't share my views exponentially more satisfying.

The point isn't to try and beat them into submission, or call them idiots, or flame them - it's to understand their opinions and state of mind and adjust your opinion depending on what you glean from that.

If someone here gives me compelling reason to support another Bush term, i'll jump right onto the boat, but as it is, all I see is cliquey, close-minded garbage.

The article was written in the vein of Roman satire, and whilst not approaching the quality of Roman classics, it remains satire rather than a direct threat on behalf of a whole media bloc. So calm down, to most people reading it I can see it not being that big a deal - whether they agree or disagree.

Posted by: Tom at October 24, 2004 at 11:03 AM

I have sent emails, and now I'm looking up any advertisers with the Guardian as well. I would love to see a concerted effort made to put these pricks out of business.

Posted by: truss at October 24, 2004 at 11:04 AM

I'm really looking forward to watching the reaction of the American and European left after Bush is re-elected. For some reason I keep visualizing the skin-melting, skull exploding climax of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at October 24, 2004 at 11:06 AM

"Andrea is a private citizen who owns spleenville. If she wants to ban somebody she can. It's no more interference with free speech than banning a burglar from entering your home is interfering with said burglar's freedom of movement. The First Amendment applies to governments, not individuals."

I'm well aware of that, having run US hosted web forums for a long while now. But on personal principle I allow free expression of political views on them, even though I'm paying the hosting bill and thus the server is mine. I don't want to be the "baddie" censor, though, so I allowed political "flamebait" as much as it may have annoyed me inside.

"What are you scared about? That under Bush the US will destroy the jihadi terrorists before they can blow up the Houses of Parliament?"

Nope, I grew up in London at the height of the IRA's bomb threats, so I'm quite used to threats of a building being blown up.

I'm more worried that Bush's actions will cause tension in the world on a far greater scale, and not just between groups of nutjobs and "us", but rather disagreements on a far greater, far more formal, international stage.

Posted by: Tom at October 24, 2004 at 11:09 AM

The point isn't to try and beat them into submission, or call them idiots, or flame them - it's to understand their opinions and state of mind and adjust your opinion depending on what you glean from that.

Justin Eagle has spoken thusly (the only post I can readily find that Andrea didn't take down...I've seen some of those, and they were worse):

"You guys are a bunch of fucking monkeys that deserve everything the Bushies are going to do to you. (...) You are bloodthirsty fucks and I'd almost feel sorry for you if this war could be brought to an end sometime soon. (...) This isn't a war on terrorism, or to find weapons of mass destruction. It's a racist bid to start World War III. (...) freepers and FOX viewers think we were attacked by Saddam, as do all the happy monkeys jumping into the insult game here. All Arabs and Muslims are all the same, right. Racist and/or ignorant shitheads all of you. (...) This page is easily one of the most disgusting ones I've ever scene. You freeper types make me wanna move to another planet. Just knowing we breath the same air makes me wanna vomit. I hate all of you more than words can ever explain."

Now tell us again how we should try and "understand [his] opinions and state of mind and adjust [our] opinion depending on what [we] glean from that."

What almost everybody here gleaned from that is that Justin is a raving nutcase who shouldn't be allowed to wipe his ass himself, let alone be allowed to post here. YMMV, of course. Since Justin left his (presumably correct) email address, how about you enter into some email correspondence with him and report back to us how that went?

The article was written in the vein of Roman satire

The Secret Service generally loses their sense of satire when a threat against a sitting President's life is made. Interesting to know that you found it entertaining, though.

Posted by: PW at October 24, 2004 at 11:14 AM

I'm more worried that Bush's actions will cause tension in the world on a far greater scale, and not just between groups of nutjobs and "us", but rather disagreements on a far greater, far more formal, international stage.

gosh, i don't know. i think all of this may serve as a wake up call to folks, to get them to think where they stand.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 24, 2004 at 11:17 AM

Ahh
"Just groups of nutjobs"
No problem then. What have we been worried about?

Posted by: truss at October 24, 2004 at 11:18 AM

i get tired of these assholes who try to excuse their immature, peevish outbursts as 'satire'.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 24, 2004 at 11:19 AM

Gee, Tom. I was under the impression that it's been Islamic terrorists' actions that have done that. Over about the past 30 years, I think.

Posted by: suellen at October 24, 2004 at 11:20 AM

We all know that most Americans have been notoriously uninterested in foreign policy for years and cannot find major world sites on a map. They don't like to read either - it would be interesting ask what are your three favorite books on the Middle East? Do you know any Arabs?

Posted by: Fu at October 24, 2004 at 11:20 AM

This is getting ridiculous, does Karl Rove have secret agents everywhere? The Guardian must be nest of them.

Posted by: Kozinski at October 24, 2004 at 11:23 AM

I wasn't downplaying the threats that nutjobs can make - from Al Qaeda to the Unabomber, weirdos are DANGEROUS. Simply postulating that by launching a broadshot war on any country remotely related to them (Axis of Evil), might push more moderate foreigners towards the extremist ends of the spectrum.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/glennreynolds/story/0,15140,1332330,00.html

The Guardian also hire Mr. IP himself to write one of their US election columns. Hardly the sign of an entirely biased newspaper - whilst I do agree that the editorial line is very left-wing.

Anyway, I'm not going to loose sleep arguing about stuff. Just thought I'd show up and perhaps at least confirm that some left-wingers can express themselves without bowing to the more rabid desires of human natures.

Best wishes
Tom

Posted by: Tom at October 24, 2004 at 11:24 AM

3 favorite books on the middle east?

hmmmm

job, first kings, and luke.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 24, 2004 at 11:25 AM

"unwarranted bloodshed" ...I wonder if he was upset about the bloodshed under Saddam...somehow, I think not.

Posted by: Lexine at October 24, 2004 at 11:26 AM

Before I am collared by the inevitable spelling fairy, I'd like to apologise for the myriad of errors in my responses. I'm tired, and I haven't been proof reading. Please excuse that oversite ;)

Posted by: Tom at October 24, 2004 at 11:26 AM

"The article was written in the vein of Roman satire"

Oh give me a fucking break Tom. Not only did the article not "approach the quality of Roman classics", it didn't even approach the quality of Roman graffiti. So please, spare us more of your patronizing lectures.

By the way, if you disapprove of the way I run the sites I manage, please feel free to go elsewhere. It's a big internet.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 24, 2004 at 11:27 AM

"I wonder if he was upset about the bloodshed under Saddam...somehow, I think not."

Indeed, just as i am worried about the mass genocide in Turkey around the same time as Saddam, and the famines (due to the Government's fault) in North Korea, that left thousands upon thousands dead.

The difference is that I don't advocate war (or "regime change") as a method to solve such crises.

Posted by: Tom at October 24, 2004 at 11:28 AM

Typical of the deep thinking and foresight of Guardian writing. If Brooker gets his wish:

President Cheney.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 24, 2004 at 11:28 AM

We all know that most Americans have been notoriously uninterested in foreign policy for years and cannot find major world sites on a map.

Phillip Adams is that you?

They don't like to read either - it would be interesting ask what are your three favorite books on the Middle East?

Please tell us, oh widely read-one, what yours are?

Do you know any Arabs?

Do you know any Americans?

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 11:32 AM

Andrea,
I hate to leave now, but I must.

I didn't find the article particularly funny, but it's certainly not a serious statement on the part of the author - by likening it to satire i'm not using condescention to make it better, just pointing the fact that it's nowhere near a death threat.

Now, as for Operation Clark County, that, I will agree with you, was a fucking bad idea.

Sleep Well.

Posted by: Tom at October 24, 2004 at 11:34 AM

From Tom,
"The difference is that I don't advocate war (or "regime change") as a method to solve such crises."
So what do you advocate,Tom? A lot of people seem to think that standing around talking for several years while folks are slaughtered is a good tactic. From your comments it seems that you do too.
I like Bush and Co's idea of doing something a bit more positive.

Posted by: truss at October 24, 2004 at 11:36 AM

As it's only 8:36pm Saturday night, I think I'll stay up a while.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 24, 2004 at 11:36 AM

"John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

Those who seek nuance and subtlety will be upset by Mr.Brooker's hectoring tone. The only way to stop those people at the Guardian, who have no racial or social value is by legislation. Something along the lines of a "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Progeny". Where are the guys from 'Aktion 14f13' when we need you?

Posted by: Permindex LLC at October 24, 2004 at 11:39 AM

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Brice_Lalonde
Interesting reading when doing Google search Of Lee Harvey Oswald Forbes Kerry
Forbes made fortune in Opium Trade and family searchs show strong lionks to communist party
the above link to Kery's first cousin and good friend make the French Connection understandable

Posted by: Rose at October 24, 2004 at 11:42 AM

I am a Norwegian, and I am OUTRAGED by this article in the Guardian.

Don't buy pathetic excuses of "it was just a joke" or "satire". These spineless cowards will not even admit to their own bile of hate.

These people (The Guardian, The Euro Left, MANY of Kerry's base) are a group of despicable characters, filled with hatred for everything America stand for, hatred for freedom and justice.

As an European, I want to express my sadness and outrage over this.


Posted by: Johan at October 24, 2004 at 11:44 AM

The Guardian proves once again that it and its readers live in bizarro world.

These current bizarro-worlders are about the most dangerous fifth-coloumnists which have ever been seen in the West.

We conservatives accept that ultimately we have to live with these bizarro-worlders, while they would rather exterminate us, and would make alliances with our mutual enemies to that purpose, thinking the crocodile will eat them last...

Posted by: Bruce at October 24, 2004 at 11:47 AM

He blinks, he mumbles, he lets a sentence trail off, starts a new one, then reverts back to whatever he was saying in the first place.

So what?
Besides, smooth talkers make the best liars.

Having endured four years of Jesse Ventura (who recently endorsed Kerry) as my governor, I think I must have been innoculated to bieng annoyed by mangled syntax.

Maybe this Justin Eaglet is too young to remember George the elder, but he was damn near as bad as W. off the cuff.

Get over it, leadership comes from many places, a capacity glibness is near the bottom of the list.

Posted by: Thomas at October 24, 2004 at 11:50 AM

At least most of those in the USA seem to have the sense to dismiss the wild incoherent ramblings of the Guardian elite who are so stuffed into the intellectual self-panegyric mode that they fail even to faintly perceive reality in any form whatsoever.

The Guardian's elitist mentality seems to be entrenched in an Elizabethen (#1) perception of British superiority. In fact, it harks back to when William the Conqueror overtook England and replaced all British rulers with French Aristocracy. The British aristocracy still speak French and look down on the normal population of England who are not nearly as stupid as they like to think.

The democrats are proving their madness daily, Kerry even intends to crown himself King of the Known and Unknown universe midday on 2nd november, minutes prior to sending 6,000 lawyers headed by John 'pretty boy' Edwards into action in an attempt to discredit President Bushs second term.

No doubt we all find it hard to miss the democrats lurking ambitions to assassinate.

Meanwhile I am searching for barf bags after watching ninemsn trot out a film by George Butler on Kerry in Vietnam showing him in a favourable light and completely neglecting facts. Such as the fact only one Swiftvet out of hundreds seemed to be on the film saying anything good about Kerry, and the rest I assume do not exist?

And ignoring those who claim they were tortured as a result of Kerrys testimony, and his 20 year non record as a Senator.

I can understand why when Kerry sees this spin hes deluding himself into thinking it means he can lead the USA.

I hope no one else is deluded by it as I would like a better world without tyrants like Saddam torturing his own people. They is no logical reason to find justication to keep the worlds wrongs rolling along, and applaud President Bushs Presidency wholeheartedly, and our PM's support of it.


Posted by: dawn at October 24, 2004 at 11:50 AM

They don't like to read either - it would be interesting ask what are your three favorite books on the Middle East?

Counter-question, Fu: What are your three favorite books written in the Middle East? Or any three books written there that achieved world-wide popular appeal?

(And no, Israeli authors don't count, since most Arabs won't consider Israel a legitimate part of the Middle East anyway. Further deductions for mentioning the Quran as one of your three books.)

Posted by: PW at October 24, 2004 at 11:51 AM

Can any commentators on this blog tell me why the meaningless "free speech" strawman is brought up when disruptive trolls are banned from this blog?

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 11:52 AM

I'm more worried that Bush's actions will cause tension in the world on a far greater scale, and not just between groups of nutjobs and "us", but rather disagreements on a far greater, far more formal, international stage.


A strong case you've made for the U.N. style of conflict management Tom? Which works terrifically well if you happen to be a comfortable, western, middle class twat.Not so good if you live in places like the Sudan and are the wrong type of Muslim. Never mind ,I'm sure a resolution is only a decade away.But please lets not offend anyone,eh?

Posted by: gubbaboy at October 24, 2004 at 11:52 AM

We all know that most Americans have been notoriously uninterested in foreign policy for years and cannot find major world sites on a map. They don't like to read either - it would be interesting ask what are your three favorite books on the Middle East? Do you know any Arabs?

As an American, I have been vastly interested in other parts of the world, and have managed to visit a few of them. I can read a map, although I'm not good at figuring out the mileage thingy. I've even been known to read a book or two, and one of them was the Koran. As for knowing Arabs --- I worked at a university for a number of years, so I did meet quite a few of them. Frankly, I didn't like any of them, but that was my own personal bias against being treated like a dog.

Posted by: Rebecca at October 24, 2004 at 11:54 AM

It's amazing how many people have not yet understood the reasons for the Iraq campaign. There were many, but I will just describe one, one that I think is the most important.

The terrorism that hit us on 9/11 grows out of the dysfunctional political culture of the Arab world. To put down the terrorism and the jihadis before they are able to turn to nuclear terrorism, and to prevent this scourge from becoming the standard warmaking method of the 21st century, this political culture must be reformed. Specialists on the subject of Middle Eastern affairs have long thought, since the 1920s, that Iraq is the best place to start such reform. So overthrowing the tyranny of Saddam and his Ba'athists and trying to implant halfway decent government there is the start of the longer effort to reform the Arab and Muslim political culture. Unless you take the view that Arabs are just a buch of Wogs who like being tyrannized and deserve nothing better, it's hard to see why one would object to this attempt to get at the root causes of terrorism.

Now for Tom's attempts at ad hominem diversions from actual reasoning.

Do I know any Arabs? Yes.

My favorite books on the Middle East?

What Went Wrong by Bernard Lewis.
The Crisis of Islam by Bernard Lewis.
The Closed Circle by David Pryce-Jones (a very enlightening book).
The Hidden Hand by Daniel Pipes.

I could cite others, Tom, but you only asked for three and I gave you four.

Posted by: Michael Lonie at October 24, 2004 at 11:59 AM

While I've looked at this blog off and on for a while, I came to post here because I was so disgusted that everybody here was having a field day making fun of photos of people who oppose this obscene war in Iraq.

However, I've lingered and continued to post because my comments have been wiped and I've been repeatedly banned because I've stated on this right-wing blog that I HATE immoral war and all those who think it's just wonderful to attack weak countries, kill thousands and take over their government. And it's so much fun to make fun of people who aren't in favor of mass death isn't it.

All this banning, just like the Bush-Cheney rallies where you can't attend unless you sign a loyalty oath, tells me one thing. You Bush lovers know, deep deep down, that you are DEATHLY wrong. You're just too deep into the bloodthirsty to stop now. And reading, or hearing, any opinion that varies from your hatred of Muslims, or your love of a Christian extremist American President is just TOO much to take.

Okay Andrea, I'll just sit here in the corner and suck on this turd while you delete my dissent. After all, freedom is on the march....

Posted by: Justin Eagle at October 24, 2004 at 12:03 PM

Can any commentators on this blog tell me why the meaningless "free speech" strawman is brought up when disruptive trolls are banned from this blog?

I can't, but it's a sufficiently longstanding strawman concept that it used to be derided as "free speach" (misspelling intentional) on Usenet as far back as the early 1980s. Primarily applied to spamming back then, but the shoe fits trolls perfectly well, too.

Posted by: PW at October 24, 2004 at 12:03 PM

Actually it wasn't Tom, it was "Fu"--or maybe better "Fou" :-) his e-mail address indicated the French persuasion.

Posted by: suellen at October 24, 2004 at 12:04 PM

My favorite book about the Middle East is Bernard Lewis' ``What Went Wrong?'' It's about the decline of Muslim culture from its apogee in the early Middle Ages to its present squalor. Highly recommended.

Posted by: Annalucia at October 24, 2004 at 12:06 PM

My apologies, that was Fu's ad hominem response.

Posted by: Michael Lonie at October 24, 2004 at 12:06 PM

John Gibson of Foxnews was fined by the Brits for saying the BBC lied on his show (an opinion show).

Surely since you can't "lie" on the tube, you can't lie in print. Is there some place we can complain to other than the Guardian?

Posted by: Kelly at October 24, 2004 at 12:06 PM

"A strong case you've made for the U.N. style of conflict management Tom? Which works terrifically well if you happen to be a comfortable, western, middle class twat."

Margaret Thatcher seems an excellent source to draw on in this situation.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. "

Posted by: Tom at October 24, 2004 at 12:08 PM

You Bush lovers know, deep deep down, that you are DEATHLY wrong. You're just too deep into the bloodthirsty to stop now.

Pure fantasy. You dont know what "I know". Get help.

Posted by: Thomas at October 24, 2004 at 12:09 PM

Fu: I live in the American heartland (Wisconsin). Here's some news for you: I have co-workers from Muslim countries, as well as from Mexico, Korea, and even Italy and England. I can buy sushi and tabbouli and balsamic vinegar at the grocery store 2 blocks away. And I've probably read more books on the ME than you have - Bernard Lewis is the best of the bunch, IMHO.

Here's my question: why do you insist on stereotyping Americans? When I traveled around the UK and Europe, I had a hard time not laughing in a lot of supposedly sophisticated Euro faces when they spoke of what they thought America was. They clearly had gotten their ridiculous ideas from TV, movies, and their own leftist media. I met someone in Oxford who seemed to think "Dallas" was a true-to-life picture of Life in Texas, instead of an entertainingly trashy soap. That's like believing that everyone in Australia is decked out like Paul Horgan, just tearing around in the Outback 24/7 and saying "fair dinkum!" 400 times a day.

Interesting that the people who profess to believe in "understanding other cultures" have next to no understanding of or sympathy for ( or even curiousity about) the culture of flyover America, even though the opinions and choices of middle Americans ultimately effects their lives and the world much more than the lifestyle of the Zimmi-Zammi tribe of outer Patagonia does.

Posted by: Donna V. at October 24, 2004 at 12:10 PM

I HATE immoral war and all those who think it's just wonderful to attack weak countries, kill thousands and take over their government.

Nah, you only hate wars started by the U.S., kiddo. Otherwise you'd be equally pissed off by things like the French and Chinese protecting their oil interests by interfering in U.S. and UN attempts to end the slaughter in Sudan. Plenty more people have died there in the last few months than under U.S. occupation in Iraq, but since the U.S. can't be painted as the bad guy in Sudan, I guess it's not interesting to you and the "peace" movement.

Or maybe it's simply that you don't wish to really inform yourself about what the world is like, and "speaking out" against something tangible like a war is so much easier than speaking out against all the other, less obvious ways in which people are killed worldwide by entities not named "United States of America"? The ones that don't make headlines in the daily press and on TV?

Posted by: PW at October 24, 2004 at 12:14 PM

I found Tom's comments mostly pretty reasonable, though I disagree with his politics. But this I cannot understand:

"The article was written in the vein of Roman satire, and whilst not approaching the quality of Roman classics, it remains satire rather than a direct threat on behalf of a whole media bloc. So calm down, to most people reading it I can see it not being that big a deal - whether they agree or disagree."

Hmmm. Well, maybe it's not a big deal, and maybe we should all "calm down". But let's be clear: no reasonable person could mistake that column for anything other than an explosion of rabid anger. The real question isn't whether Brooker (or some other idiot at the Guardian) is a threat to President Bush; it's whether Brooker's column will inspire some nutcase in one of the so-called "anti-war" groups to make an attempt on Bush's life. Of course there's a not insignificant chance of that. If the column was written for any purpose other than to act as a vehicle for Brooker's spleen, it was written to enrage Brooker's readership. And it includes what can only be described as an implied wish that someone would assassinate a foreign head of state. For that reason, the column really crosses the river into a country that newspapers shouldn't visit.

Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2004 at 12:16 PM

Err, darn editing mistakes...first sentence should read "...only hate the war because it was started by..."

Posted by: PW at October 24, 2004 at 12:16 PM

for the record, tim only says 'fair dinkum!' 286 times per day..

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 24, 2004 at 12:16 PM

Donna

They clearly had gotten their ridiculous ideas from TV, movies, and their own leftist media. I met someone in Oxford who seemed to think "Dallas" was a true-to-life picture of Life in Texas, instead of an entertainingly trashy soap.

LOL, I feel that way every time I hear the old 'cowboy' reference to W., or who-ever. These folks (my Euro-superiors), have seen way too many movies.

cya neighbor, Thomas in Minnesota

Posted by: Thomas at October 24, 2004 at 12:18 PM

Justim says,
"..wonderful to attack weak countries, kill thousands and take over their government."
Thats just the point Justin, it wasn't their government, it was Saddam's. Now, soon, when they vote it will be their government, for good or ill it will at least be the choice of the Iraqi people. Don't you want to see that?

Posted by: MOik at October 24, 2004 at 12:22 PM

Lefties are creepy thugs. They can't get their awful candidates elected, so they line up 16,000 lawyers who threaten endless lawsuits. They bully television stations who air unflattering information about their candidates.

And now they feel free to threaten a sitting US President in wartime with assasination, openly and without shame.

To paraphrase Mr. Bingley:

Un
Be
Fucking
Lievable

Posted by: Butch at October 24, 2004 at 12:23 PM

I don't know where all these readers are, but I don't take kindly to calls for assassination.

I was a first grader in Dallas when John Kennedy was assassinated, about 10 when Robert Kennedy was assassinated, and in fifth grade in a majority black school when Martin Luther King was assassinated. I was studying for a spelling bee with Mrs. Waterhouse, a fine and lovely black teacher, when MLK's death was announced over a loudspeaker.

Mr. Brooker needs better training.

Posted by: Janis Gore at October 24, 2004 at 12:26 PM

My favorite ME book, Con Caughlin's, "Saddam, King of Terror".

A superb read.

Posted by: Thomas at October 24, 2004 at 12:26 PM

I hear you Janis. I figure I'm about a year older than you, and can remember those times too. I was at summer camp when RFK was assassinated, and can still recall a counselor washing her face in the communal shower room that morning and telling me the news over her shoulder. I remember thinking bewilderedly "when does this stop? who's gonna get assassinated next?" It isn't funny at all--satire, my ass.

Posted by: suellen at October 24, 2004 at 12:35 PM

What else can be said... calling for the assassination of a US President is not only crass and stupid and downright dangerous, it also brings us back to the same morass of moral disequivalence that the left like to wallow in.

Just one example; in the investigation of mass graves of children (and their parents) in Iraq we canNOT have any Euroexperts to help because the dead toddlers' bodies may be used as evidence to persuade a judge to award Hussein the death penalty. But to call for the assassination of the US President who put the same baby-killing, woman-raping family-gassing Hussein behind bars is just. free. speech.

I really do not understand where this type of thought process comes from. I don't wish to stoop to personal invective - actually, oh yes I do. The people who make these assertions are thinking with 2 neurones linked only by a spirochaete (no it's not original but it's applicable I think).

Posted by: RJ at October 24, 2004 at 12:40 PM

Fu,

We all know that most Americans have been notoriously uninterested in foreign policy for years and cannot find major world sites on a map.

Oh, "we" know that, do "we"? Send me a map, please; I want to know which are these "major world sites" of whose location I'm entirely unaware.

They don't like to read either

Um, yeah, if I hadn't just been moving and had to deal with my eleven friggin' bookcases and their contents in the last week, that'd be more, y'know, persuasive.

- it would be interesting [TO] ask what are your three favorite books on the Middle East? Do you know any Arabs?

I know some residents of the Middle East, but as they are Jews I don't suppose they count. By the way, what are your three favorite books about America?

Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson at October 24, 2004 at 12:42 PM

Mr. Bingley — But what about "good on yer" and "no worries, mate?"

And a clarification of terms here: "Entire civilized workd" = "Anyone who gives a rat's when the Beaujolais Nouveau is coming out..."

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 24, 2004 at 01:08 PM

for the record, tim only says 'fair dinkum!' 286 times per day.

Well, I confess, I honestly do believe Tim (when he is not entertaining us online) runs around the Outback 24/7 in a big ass jeep chopping up crocodiles and bad guys with a machete. I'll be sorely disappointed if anyone tells me otherwise.

Posted by: Donna V. at October 24, 2004 at 01:12 PM

Fu —Do you know any Arabs? I've served with or worked for Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians, Iranians (no, not technically Arabs, but Middle East), Syrians and Iranian Jews? Is that enough or should I go find someone from the UAE? Do I need a Bahraini to complete the set?

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 24, 2004 at 01:15 PM

Johan, thank you.

Tom wrote: "The Guardian also hire Mr. IP himself to write one of their US election columns. Hardly the sign of an entirely biased newspaper - whilst I do agree that the editorial line is very left-wing."

One token column does not even put a dent in their usual line. Don't insult our intelligence.

Tom wrote: "The article was written in the vein of Roman satire"

Okay, then how would a Roman leader have reacted to something like this "satire" directed at him?

I bet it would hurt. A lot. And death (eventually) would come as a mercy.

Works for me.

Posted by: Jim C. at October 24, 2004 at 01:24 PM

Thomas: howdy neighbor:-D I hope Bush wins both our states!

Michelle Dulak Thomson: A fine post. And I can relate - I may never leave the appartment I live in now, because I cannot bear the thought of packing up and moving all my books.

The same people who would bend over backwards to avoid stereotyping, say, Middle Easterners, (or should I say, they would bend over forwards?) have no problem labeling a nation of 280 million people whose ancestors come from all over the world.

As for Justin Eagle's silly rants, well, there's the best argument for home schooling I've seen in a while,...,

Posted by: Donna V. at October 24, 2004 at 01:27 PM

I think Tom was referring to the Roman satire when Caesar was stabbed to death.

You know, "satire".

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 01:33 PM

On the subject of Europeans not knowing anything about the U.S., I used to work in the Internal Training dept of a big US corporation.

We'd regularly get European employees coming into the country for the first time, and it was amazing the things they would believe.

The biggest thing was distances. People would come into Atlanta, and ask "How long does it take to drive to Washington DC"? We'd respond that it took a full day. "A full day? But it's just a few states away!" The funniest case was the guy who asked if a 2-day weekend was long enough for him to drive to Yosemite (in California).

The other vivid memory I have is of the English guy who wandered into an Atlanta sandwich shop. "All of a sudden, they started asking me all sorts of questions - what type of bread, what type of meat, what type of cheese. I was overwhelmed. I didn't know what to do".

He later emailed us how glad he was to get back to England where a sandwich was a sandwich and he didn't have to make decisions.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at October 24, 2004 at 01:54 PM

Is it possible for an entire newspaper to be a troll?

Posted by: Jim Treacher at October 24, 2004 at 01:55 PM

When the good guy won the election in Australia, I got a bottle of Aussie wine to pop when the good guy wins here.
Books on the Middle East? We write books AFTER the war. Easier to do the research if Uncle Sammy is paying for the travel.
You really don't want to be in a country which has lots of books written about it by Americans.
In fact, it would be better if you never come to our attention. Except, of course, as a friend.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at October 24, 2004 at 02:03 PM

Once in a pub in Feltham I asked for a ham and cheese sandwich. The person behind the bar said, "Together?"

I love England and Great Britain, but the idea that your average Brit knows all that much about the US is a fallacy. What they know is what they see on TV and read in the papers. Imagine that was all you knew about the US. Would you want to live there?

And since they speak English, I trust they have a much better feel for the US than the rest of Europe has. I'm really not trying to run Europe down. They have the lives to live with all the opportunities and challenges that presents for them, but so do we. I just find the idea that Europeans are naturally more sophisticated amusing.

Posted by: charles austin at October 24, 2004 at 02:23 PM

> Is it possible for an entire newspaper
> to be a troll?

My sister had one of those dolls many years ago. So to the extent that it can be preternaturally ugly, diminished in stature, and the an appealing plaything for undercooked personalities, yes.

Posted by: Cridland at October 24, 2004 at 02:24 PM

The Molotov Cocktail by Brooker in El Guardian he makes reference to a Beeb documentary "The power of nightmares".

If one were to wonder over to Belmont Club you will find a complete debunking of the it.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/10/from-whose-bourne-no-traveler-returns.html

Posted by: Shaun Bourke at October 24, 2004 at 02:25 PM

> Is it possible for an entire newspaper to be a
> troll?

I see the debate is going well here.

Yes, the Guardian was created to upset the thoughtful Bush lovers who visit Tim Blair's blog. I can't believe it took you so long to figure it out.

Perhaps y'all should go covort with your hero the Rev. Moon over at the Washington Times.

God talks to him too, just like the chimp.

Posted by: J Eagle at October 24, 2004 at 02:51 PM

RJ

I don't understand the thinking either. Its complete and utter madness.

heres a quote someone sent me:

"When you look out at the world from Vienna or Stockholm or Manchester and search for something to deplore, what do you see? You see Russia spiraling down into dictatorship after a brief interlude of struggling democracy. You see North Korea, arms salesman to the world's criminals, boasting of nuclear capability. You see genocide in Darfur. And of course, you see the ghastly face of terrorism in Madrid, Bali, New York, Washington, Tel Aviv and most especially Baghdad, where terrorists grab and behead innocent Americans and Europeans, and proudly videotape their savagery. But where do many Europeans focus their wrath? On the United States. ... There is something sickly about the European approach to the world." --Mona Charen

Posted by: dawn at October 24, 2004 at 03:06 PM

richard, i believe tim's most-used line is "now that's a knife"

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 24, 2004 at 03:20 PM

Siure, complain to the Press Complaints commission. But also complain to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Incitement to murder is a criminal offence.

Posted by: Sue at October 24, 2004 at 03:26 PM

Although only twelve, J Eagle has assumed a position on the NYT editorial board. Fair Dinkum!

Posted by: YoJimbo at October 24, 2004 at 03:37 PM

This is the kind of jerk who regularly lectures the rest of us for our lack of compassion and civility. So much for his credibility.

I'd vote for Bush just to drive guys like Brooker nuts. He's a ranting cockalorum, a mooncalf, a Hitler wannabe. As far as I'm concerned, a Bush win will disprove the existence of The Guardian and Charlie Brooker.

Posted by: AST at October 24, 2004 at 03:42 PM

"and invective came directed in a writing unexpected
(And I think the same was written with a thumb-nail dipped in tar)

...........

Posted by: jlchydro at October 24, 2004 at 03:43 PM

"and invective came directed in a writing unexpected
(And I think the same was written with a thumb-nail dipped in tar)

...........

Posted by: jlchydro at October 24, 2004 at 03:44 PM

"But at least [Kerry's] not a lying, sniggering, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat. And besides, in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I'd favour."

Aw, come one, Charlie, nobody's perfect. There's no need to get so personal.

Oh, there's one more thing, Charlie: In a fight between Bush and Kerry, I'd bet on Bush any old day. He has that look, hard to put your finger on but unmistakable, of a man who would fight. Kerry? He'd take a poll.

Posted by: Butch at October 24, 2004 at 03:45 PM

I lived in Europe for four years. My experience with European ignorance of America is somewhat similar to Jay's above. Many Europeans do not comprehend the physical size and population of America. When talking to a European, inevitably, they would say something like: “I have a cousin in Chicago name Charles. Do you know him?” Or, “My sister Ann moved to California, have you ever met her?” They always seemed puzzled when I said no.

Posted by: perfectsense at October 24, 2004 at 03:51 PM

, or your love of a Christian extremist American President is just TOO much to take.

Mr Bush is a Methodist. There is no single Protestant religion that is less extreme apart from, possible, the Quakers.

Posted by: walterplinge at October 24, 2004 at 04:34 PM

'Twas that Brooker bloke who wrote it
and verbatim I will quote it
"John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

Dunno, mate. You tell me.

Posted by: jlchydro at October 24, 2004 at 04:44 PM

Wouldn't it be ironic if John Hinckley Jnr assassinated Brooker to try and win the love of Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: Clem Snide at October 24, 2004 at 04:52 PM

"I see the debate is going well here."

It was just a question, friend J Eagle. Relax.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at October 24, 2004 at 04:53 PM

There is no single Protestant religion that is less extreme apart from, possible, the Quakers.

The thing is, for guys like Justin Eagle, "Christian extremist" is tautological.

Posted by: PW at October 24, 2004 at 04:56 PM

After
1 THE INTIMIDATION OF american voters
2 tHE CALL FOR THE AASISNATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE us
3 AND NOW SHAKESPEARE WAS MUSLIM!
All is revealed at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1334860,00.html

Posted by: davo at October 24, 2004 at 05:06 PM

perfectsense,

most Americans are pretty ignorant of Europe; Europeans opposed the attack on Iraq because their parents and grandparents know what it's like to bombed. We didn't need to attack and bomb the entire country of Iraq to take out Saddam, if that is all Bush wanted, but what he did want, among other things, was to occupy the country and build his fourteen bases there, or rather, have Halliburton build them. I've been in touch with a couple of the Iraqis I knew in college. They hate Saddam but didn't want to bombed and invaded.

I made it a point to get to know international students when I was in college - they'd ask me why our government supported this dictator or that one (the Shah, Pinochet, Saddam, Sukarno, etc). Henry Kissinger used to call this "realpolitik".

"Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain

Posted by: Fu at October 24, 2004 at 05:07 PM

I,m just surprised that some rednecks can write,thank christ most of them are too dumb to vote.

Posted by: marklatham at October 24, 2004 at 05:08 PM

I,m just surprised that some rednecks can write,thank christ most of them are too dumb to vote.

Anyone see the irony in a sentiment like this expressed by someone with a punctuation problem?

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 05:33 PM

"I,m just surprised that some rednecks can write,thank christ most of them are too dumb to vote."

Some rednecks even know the difference between an apostrophe and a comma.

Good thing most of us rednecks were too dumb to vote in Oz. Just imagine what the result might have been!

Posted by: jlchydro at October 24, 2004 at 05:34 PM

"Europeans opposed the attack on Iraq because their parents and grandparents know what it's like to bombed."

It's funny then, that they finance the PLO, isn't it? Perhaps they also remember the stories their grandparents proudly tell of the rewards they got for collaborating with the Nazis. Funny they didn't scream so loudly when Saddam Hussein was bombing the Kurds or the Iranians, or when Sudanese arabs were carrying out their genocide against Sudanese Christians and Animists.

Maybe there's another explanation. Maybe the Europeans elites are terrified of the large, violent, hostile and parasitic muslim fifth column their leftist traitorous elites infiltrated into their countries. Maybe they are terrified that civil war will break out in Europe before thay can collect on their unfunded and unaffordable pension schemes. Maybe the Euro elites are terrified that the flow of bribes from arab oil tyrants will stop. But I suspect the real reason is that America's military, economic, scientific and cultural dominance reminds Europeans (and leftists generally) of their own worthlessness, weakness and failure.

"I made it a point to get to know international students when I was in college - they'd ask me why our government supported this dictator or that one (the Shah, Pinochet, Saddam, Sukarno, etc)."

Simple. To stop Communist imperialism. Did they complain about the WWII alliance with the Soviet Union to stop the Nazis? Actually, scratch that, arabs would complain, since the arabs were Axis allies. But would leftists?

Posted by: Clem Snide at October 24, 2004 at 05:35 PM

However, I've lingered and continued to post because my comments have been wiped and I've been repeatedly banned because I've stated on this right-wing blog that I HATE immoral war and all those who think it's just wonderful to attack weak countries, kill thousands and take over their government.

Actually, it's because you're being an asshole, but I guess you need something to feed your "wah, I'm being martyred" fantasy.

HTH, HAND.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at October 24, 2004 at 05:43 PM

I realize that I am already in a bad mood tonight so I cannot take the call for the assassination of my president in a humorous vein. That a major paper would knowingly print and disseminate this call is horrendous. I had thought the Guardian was arrogant but never thought they thought they could go so far as to call for the assassination of a head of state with impunity. Another reason to vote for Bush: Kerry would actually give that rag a voice in his deliberations instead of repulsing them for their uncivilized act.

Posted by: kate at October 24, 2004 at 05:49 PM

The difference is that I don't advocate war (or "regime change") as a method to solve such crises.
Yes, you advocate doing nothing because better that you sit around looking concerned and caring, yet keep your hands clean, than actually, you know, fix the problem and look insensitive towards the needs of Islamofascists. You're more ready for the US than you think, Tom. You demonstrate classic American leftist attitudes: all symbolism, no substance.

Posted by: Big Dog at October 24, 2004 at 06:02 PM

Boy, Charlie sure managed to raise temperatures didn't he? Personally, I believe that Charlie's comments are nothing less than incitement to murder and that by publishing his column the Guardian, ipso facto, becomes a party to conspiracy to murder. Not that anyone important is going to take the Guardian on because, even though the writing is on the wall for the big media, the perception that is still all powerful is very real among the movers and the shakers. Of course, if (God forbid) George W. got wacked in the next few weeks, circumstances would change and the Guardian would find itself in a very precarious position indeed.
All that aside, it bothers me that several posters here equate the Guardian with the voice of the British people. That's a nonsense, the Guardian (with supreme complacency) has long seen itself as the vox populi of Britain but, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. For many years the Guardian has made a handsome profit by catering to the ignorance of the urban poor, the prejudice of the loony left and the populist trends of the chattering classes - the views of the vast majority of the British public are of no real interest to the Guardian and they are, generally, treated with contempt. Suffice to say that Great Britain is a major player in the Coalition of the Willing and that British soldiers were among the first ashore in the invasion of Iraq and continue to play an important role in the pacification - I doubt that many British squaddies are Guardian readers.

Posted by: Boss Hog at October 24, 2004 at 06:04 PM

Fu...

Europeans opposed the attack on Iraq because their parents and grandparents know what it's like to bombed.

Ah yes, seeing as how they bombed the people of England, Poland, Russia, France, oh yes, and lets not forget those lovely human incinerators.

Keep lecturing us. Remember, it has only been 60 years.

Posted by: Thomas at October 24, 2004 at 06:36 PM

One of the things that strikes me about the Left's positiion on the war in the wake of the campaign in Iraq is its utter lack of seriousness.


Understand that real, mature individuals are reduced to scathing ad hominem attacks against the President (chimp, Bushhitler, etc....). They do this because in their blessed heart of hearts, they are profoundly afraid of the world that bin Laden has bequeathed to us, be he alive or dead.


The Left got very comfortable in the Nineties. Economic growth was coupled with a centrist Democratic Administration to produced a phenomenon not seen since the boom days of the 1920's. September 11th ripped all of that away.


Conservatives have no trouble adjusting to the world as it is. We always understood (yes, even Buchanan and the Paleocons...) that man is a risen devil, not a fallen angel. Thus he is neither perfectable nor capable of a greater good in the absence of the restraints of natural and State law. Bin Laden's very existence threatens that order, as the Sheikh (if still alive) is the ultimate tactical anarchist. His strategic objective, of course, remains the conquest of the Christian West and the extermination of the Jews of Israel. But along the way, this "socialist in a hurry" has no problem with the Guevarist tactic of mass murder on a biblical scale.


The idea that much of southern Manhattan could be vaporized into nothingness in a single minute frightens the Lefties no end. Trust me, folks. The Bush haters are angry, yes. But the foundation of anger is fear-fear of the unknown, and fear of the enemy. And so, it should be no suprise that they choose to malign the one man who is committed to saving all of them.


It's much easier to do that than to accept the fact that the Islamic world has produced mass murderers of the first rank.

Posted by: Section 9 at October 24, 2004 at 07:01 PM

Fu said:

Europeans opposed the attack on Iraq because their parents and grandparents know what it's like to bombed.

If you believe this, you are displaying both your ignorance and ignorance of Europeans. The bombing in Europe is not comparable to the bombing in Iraq. The Europeans wished they could have been bombed like Iraq. In WWII up to 1000 planes flew wingtip to wingtip and absolutely leveled many European cities going after military targets. This went on for years. Near the end, anything standing was a military target and over a million people were killed. In Dresden alone, over 100,000 people died in one raid.

After the US spent many billions on training and accuracy, the bombing in Iraq was far more precise and the resulting damages were probably less the one WWII raid. After being given their freedom with American blood and treasure, and hiding behind the America shield for 60 years, its laughable that Europeans “know” more about war than Americans.

Many Europeans couldn’t give a hoot about Iraqi lives; they opposed American action in Iraq because their government, businessmen and press were being bribed by Saddam.

Posted by: perfectsense at October 24, 2004 at 07:09 PM

> Understand that real, mature individuals are
> reduced to scathing ad hominem attacks against
> the President (chimp, Bushhitler, etc....). They do
> this because in their blessed heart of hearts, they
> are profoundly afraid of the world that bin Laden
> has bequeathed to us, be he alive or dead.

Nope, just afraid of the relationship Bush Sr. & Jr. have established with the Saudis (including the Bin Ladens). Osama is Emmanual Goldstein, and if you don't know what that means you need to read up on George Orwell, who would have understood what these truth-destroyers in office in America right now are doing better than anyone else.

The Bush Crime Family are the ulitmate terrorists. You can read about it on the internets.

Posted by: Justin Eagle at October 24, 2004 at 07:42 PM

> Understand that real, mature individuals are
> reduced to scathing ad hominem attacks
> against the President (chimp, Bushhitler,
> etc....). They do this because in their blessed
> heart of hearts, they are profoundly afraid of
> the world that bin Laden has bequeathed to us,
> be he alive or dead.

Nope, just afraid of the relationship Bush Sr. & Jr. have established with the Saudis (including the Bin Ladens). Osama is Emmanual Goldstein, and if you don't know what that means you need to read up on George Orwell, who would have understood what these truth-destroyers in office in America right now are doing better than anyone else.

I am fearing the world that has been bequeathed to us by right wing morons who have been convinced to hate Muslims by the Bush Crime Family.

By the way, the Bush Crime Family are the ulitmate terrorists. You can read about it on the internets. War Profits=Power....

Posted by: Justin Eagle at October 24, 2004 at 07:45 PM

Dear Editor of The Guardian,

Re: "Dumb show" and "heady times".

Sir, have you lost your noggin?

In these perilous times one would hope that cooler heads might prevail. Instead, in your pages, a hot-headed scribe has whistfully imagined mimicry of the very sort of violence that is now commonly espoused in the unironic threats of hooded assassins.

If Charlie Brooker's head is full of rhetorical steam in hopeful anticipation of the timely murder of the President of the United States, he might thankfully welcome the malodorous embrace of those who now saw-off heads in a deadly war of propaganda and terror aimed, at least in part, at the decapitation of democratic governments and voices of freedom. It is a war in which an incompetently sarcastic Mr. Brooker has just taken his post as a useful fool.

Should Mr. Brooker's head show-up someplace apart from his body, his loss would be lamented, no doubt, by anyone with a warm heart and half a brain. And, no doubt, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair et al labour thanklessly in the defence of Mr. Brooker's right to childish pranks and to retain a head, no matter how empty, upon his slender shoulders.

These are times for grown-ups. Mr. Brooker is best to strike himself dumb, mute, and otherwise incapable of uttering death wishes. But that's not how useful fools make themselves useful, now is it?

Heady times, indeed.

Posted by: F. Rottles at October 24, 2004 at 08:00 PM

"the Bush Crime Family are the ulitmate terrorists. You can read about it on the internets"

Which particular internet would that be, Just In??

I can also read about invaders from outer space on the "internets".

Don't hold back, Just In, give it to us, chapter and verse, details of at least one Bush Crime Family crime.

If your case is strong enough we will prosecute (or perhaps, persecute).

Janjaweed International

PS, give us your address. We'll drop by for a chat

Posted by: jlchydro at October 24, 2004 at 08:06 PM

Did Justin Eagle just imply that Bin Laden, and by extension al-Qaeda, are just figments of the Bush administration's imagination? Hmm, where have I read that before...oh, yeah, in the Guardian just a week ago. Justin, not that it'll do anything good, but here's something for you to read from someone who's just a little more clued-in than you seem to be.

And while you're reading that, I'll laugh uncontrollably about what you wrote about Bush's "relationship with the Saudis". Mindlessly parroting Michael Moore's nonsense is the most surefire way of exposing your cluelessness around here, as you have just shown. Once again.

BTW, regarding one of your statements from further up:

While I've looked at this blog off and on for a while, I came to post here because I was so disgusted that everybody here was having a field day making fun of photos of people who oppose this obscene war in Iraq.

I hope you're aware that if you continue to infest this blog with your fact-free inanities, we will make fun of you worse than we did of any of those peace protesters. People will shoot down your silly "arguments" with actual facts (you know, stuff based in reality) and proceed to mercilessly ridicule you and everything you profess to stand for. Repeatedly, until the point gets into that thick skull of yours.

You strike me as somebody wíth likely rather low self-esteem - I can assure you that a prolonged stay on this blog, or any conservative blog with a sizable number of commenters, will be quite detrimental to your mental health and remaining level of self-esteem. Proceed at your own risk. (This warning brought to you by Compassionate Conservatives'R'Us, because we're nice like that around here, don'tcha know.)

Posted by: PW at October 24, 2004 at 08:11 PM

Jesus. Have a sense of humor, people. Charlie Brooker is a TV columnist. A joke writer. The kind of guy that spews invective for a cheap laugh. The kind of guy who has, in the past, called for the assassination of every no-mark TV commentator and micro-"celebrity" to ever pollute your TV screen. He's not a serious political commentator; he's not writing on the Op-ed pages. He. Is. Having. A. Laugh.

And he's having a laugh at people like you, if these comments are anything to go by.

Posted by: Leon at October 24, 2004 at 08:26 PM

By the way Justin, PW is a European.

From the former East, if I'm not mistaken.

Therefore he knows a lot more about tyranny than you do...

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 08:27 PM

Leon, he may be a joke writer.

The problem is, the joke isn't funny.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 08:29 PM

Justin Eagle sounds like a muslim who collaborates with murdering terrorists.

After watching the people waving or jumping from the Twin Towers, or hearing the description of innocents having their heads sawn off by Islam Death Cultists, I can only assume he is evil, stupid or French.

Could the mgt modify his posts so that any word after the 10th word is replaced with

"blah-blah-blah...Bush is evil...blah-blah-blah...9-11 was faked and was carried out by the zionists and they deserved it anyway...blah-blah-blah"

ps, the left & islamists post to cloud issues. Writing to the Press Complaints Commission and shut down the Racist Guardian newspaper.

Posted by: Briana at October 24, 2004 at 08:30 PM

For lefties struggling to understand "What's wrong with this?", imagine if Fox News or the New York Post had a "joke" column calling for the murder of Kofi Annan or Jacques Chirac.

Clearer now?

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 08:31 PM

"I made it a point to get to know international students when I was in college - they'd ask me why our government supported this dictator or that one (the Shah, Pinochet, Saddam, Sukarno, etc)."

I hoped they followed up with the "...And why did the American Left support Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che', Fidel and countless other vile communist regimes?"

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 08:36 PM

Justin Eagle
read up on George Orwell

Ok I will


`there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries

Hey Justin, Orwell described your type of group think 50 years ago.

Cheers from the left coast,
13

Posted by: 13times at October 24, 2004 at 08:39 PM

Quentin, interesting response. If you grant that it's a joke (which you seem to do), then what's the problem? Set aside whether you (or I, or anyone else) consider it funny, and ask this: should he be allowed to make that particular joke? And if not, why not?

Posted by: Leon at October 24, 2004 at 08:40 PM

The offhand comment "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" led to the murder in 1170 of Thomas a Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury.

Words have power.

Posted by: Fred Boness at October 24, 2004 at 08:42 PM

Leon,

Here's a joke for you:

I wish somebody would shoot your mother in the head.

Funny joke, right? Are laughing your ass off?

Come on boy, tell me you are laughing your ass off.

Posted by: David Crawford at October 24, 2004 at 08:46 PM

Leon, the above two posters have illustrated the problem with this "joke" as eloquently as I ever could.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 08:49 PM

Therefore he knows a lot more about tyranny than you do...

Well, I won't profess to "know" a lot about tyranny, and many posters here have seen more of the world than I have, and likely witnessed their share of tyranny. (And it was only the first decade of my life I had to spend behind the Iron Curtain, so it surely doesn't compare to others who lived there for much longer.) It does serve as a good starting point for common-sense comparisons though, something that Justin clearly lacks (both the starting point and the common sense).

Incidentally, one thing that I quite vividly remember from that one decade as a kid in East Germany is the nature of the "news" broadcasts and publications. It's absolutely astonishing just how much news shows on the alphabet networks and articles in the mainstream press (the Grauniad being a perfect example) have drifted into propaganda territory nowadays. Black is white and up is down, and Justin Eagle has the gall to reference George frickin' Orwell as support for his demented positions. Just amazing.

Posted by: PW at October 24, 2004 at 08:50 PM

Hilarious. Particularly considering that my mother was car-jacked at gunpoint in Johannesburg and was then shot by some people who wanted to steal her purse.

Not really. She died of leukemia. And I still think that this is one of the funniest jokes in the world:
Kid A: "So, what did you get for Christmas?"
Kid B: "Man, it was great. I got a bike, and a PlayStation2, and a full set of Pokemon cards, and a toy car that actually drives, and every episode of The Simpsons on DVD, and a trip to Disneyland."
Kid A: "Mom, why can't I have leukemia?"

Tasteless? Definitely. Funny? Ditto.

Point is, though, it's not about whether this particular joke is funny, or not. It's about the freedom to make it.

The other point here, of course, is about context: if it was Jackie Ashley (or Jonathan Freedland, or any of the Guardian's serious political commentators) advocating the assassination of a world leader then, yes, it would be serious. But if it's a guy who writes TV column. He's not some latter-day Thomas a Becket; he's more like the guy in the corner of the local tavern having a laugh with his friends, rather than one of the most powerful figures of his time.

Posted by: Leon at October 24, 2004 at 09:04 PM

Apologies for the extraneous "if" in that last comment. Also, I shuld have said I was answering David Crawford.

Posted by: Leon at October 24, 2004 at 09:08 PM

Leon, I'm not sure what your point is. Is any statement acceptable if it can be construed as a joke?

How about overtly racist or sexist material? Jokes about gassing Jews? What's the line? Is their a line?

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 09:08 PM

And I should learn how to speel "should".

Posted by: Leon at October 24, 2004 at 09:10 PM

Cheers PW, I wasn't exactly sure of your age.

Still, I'll put money on the fact "Justin Eagle" wouldn't know a repressive regime even if it was pulling off his fingernails one by one.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 24, 2004 at 09:10 PM

I'd post something interesting but I really couldn't be arsed and theres alread enough crap to sift through.

So please, skim over. Nothing to see here.

Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2004 at 09:13 PM

It's about the freedom to make it.

What about having the human decency to refrain from making it? You're just echoing classic leftist thinking here...everyone should be allowed to do everything, but nobody should be made to face any consequences. (Apparently not even the benign consequence of having pointed out that one just crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed.) Feel free to call me humorless, but for some odd reason I think it wrong to let incitement to murder stand without consequences. I wonder what you think about the Village Voice columnist who called for the extermination of all Republicans a couple of months ago? Ha-ha funny, isn't it?

Posted by: PW at October 24, 2004 at 09:18 PM

The Bush Crime Family are the ulitmate terrorists. You can read about it on the internets.

That's priceless, well done Justin. As far as Charlie Brooker goes, I agree with Leon that he's free to write what he wants, but the telling fact is that in the Guardian even the TV reviews aren't free from their relentless anti-Bush ranting, and that under Alan Rusbridger's editorship it's become a sour, nasty parody of itself.

Posted by: wardytron at October 24, 2004 at 09:18 PM

Justin Eagle, for future reference: the normal blogging procedure is to provide a link to the relevant source, and an appropriate quote supporting the point you're trying to make. Typing "You can read about it on the internets" isn't really enough.

Posted by: wardytron at October 24, 2004 at 09:21 PM

The Guardian. Read it, watch Fox News, go to middle ground, find truth.

Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2004 at 09:23 PM

[My spelling seems to have gone to pot in the last two posts]

Quentin,
The question of the line, such as it is, is always a tough one. Sam Kinison or Bill Hicks might be viewed, by some, as sexist or even misogynist (and certainly, both of them have done material which could be accused of that); nevertheless, they're funny because what they're saying not only exposes their own prejudices, but it makes a point about the prejudices of others. That's why it's funny, and so much of the time, that's where the line is. Jokes about gassing Jews? Not funny, unless they're harpooning our everyday beliefs about what happened, and thus the object of the joke becomes not the people being gassed, but the prejudices of the audience. (Ever seen Roberto Benigni's Life Is Beautiful? There's plenty jokes about gassing Jews in that.)

[By the way, I have to go to work now, but I'd be genuinely interested in continuing this via email; the comedy of bad taste is such a thorny matter, and not one that can necessarily be parsed in a couple of posts like this.]

Posted by: Leon at October 24, 2004 at 09:24 PM

he's more like the guy in the corner of the local tavern having a laugh with his friends

We all expect this sort of discourse in a bar, the distinction between a paid writer and a few drunk friends comes at the point of civility, I hold a writer and a newspaper to a higher standard. In fact in the US the drunk could be arrested for this form of free speech.

"should he be allowed to make that particular joke? And if not, why not?"

You think the author of the article should be immune from prosecution.?

We are all equal, some are just more equal than others.

Posted by: 13times at October 24, 2004 at 09:25 PM

PW:
No, incitement to murder shouldn't be left to stand without consequences. My point is, this wasn't encitement to murder (nor was the Village Voice writer's comment that all Republicans should be extinguished - IF it was a joke. Nor would be a similar comment from (say) Andrew Dice Clay that all liberals should be extinguished). It was a punchline to a joke.

Last comment before I have to go: yes, I probably am echoing classic leftist thinking, given that that's my politics; but that in no way means that I think everyone should be free to do anything without having to face the consequences. I'd be interested if you could cite any left wingers (NOT communists, or Marxists; the three terms are not mutually interchangeable).

Anyway, I have to go, but I'll come back later; it'd be nice to colntinue this.

Posted by: Leon at October 24, 2004 at 09:32 PM

"any left wingers ( ... ) who support this position" that should have read.

13times: immune from prosecution? No. But find me any court that wouldn't throw this out, and I'll donate ten bucks to Bush/Cheney04.

Posted by: Leon at October 24, 2004 at 09:35 PM

I need to add this:

Leon you artfully misdirected the arguement of free speech and freedom of the press into a narrow topic regarding humor. The author argued a laundry list of the leftist propaganda and summed up his article by day-dreaming previous presidential assassinations and wistfully calling forth a new demon.

I know a duck when I see one.

Posted by: 13times at October 24, 2004 at 09:46 PM

Leon:

Alec Baldwin on Conan O'briens late nite show screamed that people should march to Sen. Henry Hydes home and stone his family to death. later Baldwin hid behind the facade of humor and acting to cover his tyrade. I was watching that night and every vien on his neck and forehead bulged out so far that they almost burst.

That was no act. He meant it.

PS I know its hard to come to a hostile board and get piled onto, but I can't sleep ;)

Posted by: 13rimes at October 24, 2004 at 10:04 PM

>The only way to stop those people at the Guardian, who have no racial or social value is by legislation.

Well, let us start by complaining to the Press Complaints Commission by phone, letter ot email as shown above.

I also complained about that they last week asked their readers to spam US citizens and provided a database with names and addresses for this.

Posted by: jorgen at October 24, 2004 at 10:06 PM

Do you know any Arabs?

Yes, one. Stupid girl. There she was, in full black hijab, only her eyes showing. In Darwin of all places. She'll probably have a vitamin D deficiency by now. Her kids, if she has any, will be born with rickets. But, you know, it's better to make women sweat to death and/or bear malformed children than to require Muslim men to be responsible for curbing their own lusts. Even then, despite covering up completely, an Arab woman in full hijab in a Muslim country is more likely to be raped than is the most scantily clad woman in the West. Why is that, I wonder, sarcastically?

My widowed mother knows a whole family of Arabs. They've lived next door to her for years. They're Christians and she and they are good friends, looking after each other.

Posted by: Janice at October 24, 2004 at 10:24 PM

Leon,

You keep on insisting that the column was nothing but a joke.

OK, fine, now:

Show me sentence that causes you, and us, to laugh aloud.

Or, maybe, that section causes you, and us, to express a big guffaw.

Or, maybe that paragraph that causes you, and us, get that wry smile of bemusement on our faces.

You can’t because that piece was written in total seriousness, and I dare you to cite anything at all in that piece that contradicts my assertion. You can’t because there isn’t any.

Posted by: David Crawford at October 24, 2004 at 10:32 PM

The UK is not as fastidious as the USA over the right to free speech. I hope the UK government does something about this.


In the words of the US admiral in the film Hunt for Red October - This is getting out of control, somebody is going to get killed if this keeps up.

Posted by: davod at October 24, 2004 at 10:34 PM

Ah god damn it I feel sad when what I consider natural allies Europe/USA are as it sometimes could appear on the verge of hating one another.


Nations, cultures, World parts, itīs really interesting though. I live in Denmark and Denmark is a tiny country I think Texas alone is probably anything 10-30 times as big as my country as you see I have no clue as to exactly how much. Yet this little country alone is seperated in 4 major regions. Jutland which is the mainland where I live, Fyn, Sjaelland, Bornholm all islands.
Even though my country is so damn small with so few people ( a little over 5 million people ) There are so many places I know very little about in this country, even though they basically few miles away and there are quite noticeable differences in dialect, viewpoints etc. between native Danes living on the west coast or the west coast of Jutland just about 70 miles away from me, and those on the east coast where I live. Not that we hate each other but certainly we are different and our relations are swamped in prejudice. And of course from time to time there emerge a subject on which you find the west coast has very different view on than the east coast which grow tensions. But they should never escalate into hate cause in the end we all know we are Danes. Now stroll a little bit over the border into Germany or Sweden and those differences gets enlarged in language and in viewpoints etc. Some as well prefer to seperate Europe into two major sections, the Protestant North, and the Catholic South.
Now I am not a mr. ignorant and there is a lot I know. But the further you get away from what I was born into, what is not for some reason in the sphere of my immediate interest - the less I know. And my bet is thatīs the case with everyone - some know more than others indeed but everyone knows more about whatīs in their immediate sight.
I know many Americans and talked to so many of them and quite frankly I enjoy it. I do feel sympathy for Americans I canīt always tell why ? I could say the southernes are warm and blunt people and I like that. Finding some key words can be appropiate but it does not necesarily spell the whole issue - some are just as intagible as a lot of other mysterious factors of life. eg. Why do I love exactly that woman so much and not the one next to her or simply like any person more than some other? Likewise there are things I donīt like about Americans as there are things I donīt like about anybody including - huh - eh - ahem - myself. I have talked to Americans which thought Denmark was the capitol in Sweden, now since Im proud of my country ( spite itīs glory days of Wikings and having the worldīs largest fleet are long since past ) that could hurt my patriotic heart. But in fact it doesnīt and nor does it confirm me in how ignorant Americans are. Cause equally I might from time to time mix a name of a state capitol with a name of an American state - Quite frankly there is a lot I donīt know about USA. And the same naturally applies to the American I canīt expect him/her to know all about Europe.

But ofcourse this issue, the apparent growing gap between Europe and the USA is about a good deal more than just geographical facts. And indeed the gap does not only exist between Europeans and Americans, but between Americans and Americans, Europeans and Europeans. A lot of people will be crying if Bush wins in Europe no doubt. But so will a lot of Americans. Bush would never win a majority of votes in Europe - but that doesnīt mean he would not get any I think 30 % of Europe still appreciate Bush and would probably even vote for him if they had the chance.

Every country is somehow shaped by past events, shaped by itīs history or well letīs not forget the egg usually comes before the hen, the "spirit" and "drive" of past generations has shaped the history as we know it.
If it was liberty - enlightenment - or whatever it was it added to the world that was, and made the world we live in today. From the single individual to the family, to the region, to the country, to the world part. It shaped and made a difference.
When the Emperor was killed in Sarajevo in 1914 the armies of Europe marched to war accompanied by the cheering crowds, every nation had a score to settle, every nation figured it soon would over. When Europe 20 years later started to slowly realize which way it was heading - the attitude was different - people kept looking away and people kept hoping and understandable though not the most clever thing to do, I should say.
As one mentioned the bombings and horrors of the sorld wars in Europe has burned their way into the mind of Europe. But I find you have to add to that the same is the case with the shame of being the cause of those wars because who else was to be blamed than us, the Europeans? The shame of what happened then is deeper than most people think for obvious reasons especially in case with the Germans Iīve experienced Germans starting to cry just if you casually for some reason mentioned Hitler. There is I guess no harsher word you can say to Most Germans than Hitler.

But to take the step to this day I think there is a strong point that fear of the moslems is playing much of a part in the politics of Europe this day. So does leftwing opportunism. I canīt help wonder how would Europe have reacted if what happened 9/11 happened to Europe, and how would the USA have reacted ? I think itīs relevant to to ask cause Europeans donīt really understand what that meant to Americans, it wasnīt just an attack on some buildings, it was an attack on everything USA stands for including as Bush so often hint their Freedom. And what so many Europeans certainly donīt understand is that as a matter of fact it was an attack on them too. It was an attack on the free world, an attack on western culture by another culture which hate us so deeply and would hate us even if we did nothing but being what we are and believe in. And the only thing seperating us from a full scale war in reality is that only we have the means to run such a war not they. Europe is slowly but securely once again moving into the danger zone and unfortunately I can get the impression that more people see it outside than inside. Ayatollah Khomenei even formulated the idea of defeating the west through immigration, yet so much of Europe turn the deaf ear, but not all fortunately.

Which brings me back to the starting point it really makes me sad when a gap is growing between natural allies - The constant flow of accusations flying over the atlantics from both sides is ignorance of the fact that in the end we are the free world and we should build in unity and act in unity in defense of this. ( Chirac hails his nice little multipolar theory where several superpowers excel - and of-course he hopes Europe shall be the greatest, but Europe is not Chirac )
I hope Bush gets reelected and does a great job so this hysteria can end, and freedom plus our core values wonīt be slighted or forgotten.


Posted by: T Hansen at October 24, 2004 at 10:39 PM

I was so angry with Leon that I called a few mates and we dragged him off the bus he was on travelling to work.We dragged him into a back alley where we f****d him senseless.He squeeled like a pig.We all laughed so hard it hurt.But then we're all sadists.We had another huge laugh at the world in general because as a whole they just misunderstand us sadists and we think that's so funny.We tried to make Leon see the funny side of the rape ,we sort of thought he'd get it because he seemed like such an understanding guy,laughing at his mums death and all.But he couldn't stop crying.Go figure.

Posted by: gubbaboy at October 24, 2004 at 10:47 PM

13times:
Didn't see that when it was originally broadcast 5 years ago, but a quick bit of googling turns up the fact that he prefaced said rant with the phrase "if we were in other countries", which changes the context somewhat. [Source here.]

David:
Maybe what I found funny was the bit where Brooker said, of the US election, that it's "a bit like American Idol, but with terrifying global ramifications."
Maybe it was when he said of Bush: "Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement. Forgive me for employing the language of the playground, but the man's a tool."
Or maybe it was when he described John Kerry as sounding "a bit like a haunted tree" (Hey, I'll bet we both got a laugh out of that bit, didn't we?)
Or when he said Bush was "a lying, sniggering, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat." (Don't know about you, but I thought that particular sentence was hilarious.)

Either way, if you think that piece was written in total seriousness, you obviously don't live in the UK. Charlie Brooker is the man behind satirical TV listings site TV Go Home among other things. He's never been a political columnist, just someone who lances boils that are a particularly unpleasant presence on out TV screens.

And as for the piece being full of left-wing invective? Well, to quote Homer Simpson: "It's funny 'cause it's true."

Posted by: Leon McDermott at October 24, 2004 at 10:47 PM


"The Guardian. Read it, watch Fox News, go to middle ground, find truth.

Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2004 at 09:23 PM "

I'm afraid not Andy, the above is the classic example of the fallacy of the middle ground.

Just because there are two opposing positions on a subject, it does not imply that the truth is in the middle.

Example - I accuse you of murdering 2 kiddies, you deny murdering any.

The truth is not neccessarily that you murdered one kiddie.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at October 24, 2004 at 10:52 PM

gubbaboy:
Of course, when you and your mates fucked me senseless, it was only because i was asking for it. ;)

Posted by: Leon at October 24, 2004 at 10:53 PM

If Charlie Brooker was a guy in the pub and he said this, he should be picking shards of a pint glass out of his fucking face.

/Roman satire

Justin's 'internets' remark is a reference to one of W's malaprops.

Justin also completely misses the point of Goldstein in '1984'. Orwell would recognize George Bush as the 'Goldstein' of this era's Left.

Posted by: JDB at October 24, 2004 at 10:53 PM

It's a little known fact that my little outburst during the Pres' visit was a cleverly planned assasination attempt. Remember the sprig of wattle I was wearing? That wasn't merely a shallow attempt to hide my disdain for my country and feign national pride; Greens intelligence learned that Dubya has a little known intolerance to Australian wattle.

He came out in hives shortly after Mrs. Howard presented Mrs. Bush with a bottle of Mudgee Wattle bubble bath back in 2001. The evil racist, homophobic, imperialist American media hushed it up.

I knew that if I could get close enough to shove a sprig up George's nose, he'd be deader than the Tasmanian Tiger ( 1936... tragic day for Australian wildlife). Unfortunately I couldn't even get close enough to cop a feel of those tight Presidential buns.

Oh well, there's always next time. Maybe I'll try an exploding suicide cardigan. Or an exploding policy. We did some damage with those in the lead-up to the election.

Did I mention that the election result was a tragic day for Australian politics?

Posted by: Bob Brown at October 24, 2004 at 10:53 PM

Yo. Leon,

Know any good jokes about assassinating Iranian Mullahs that we can expect to see from the Guardian TV critics in the next few weeks??

The real problem, of course, is the euro left-lib orthodoxy. The old sovs knew fuck all about brainwashing. The eurofascists have elevated it to a fine art.

Without even being aware of it, almost the entire ageing euro population has been brainwashed into believing that lemming behaviour is entirely appropriate.

Well, I say fuck off and head for that cliff!

Posted by: jlchydro at October 24, 2004 at 11:24 PM

I'm with you, T. Hanson, thank you for your post. I really am frightened that the "world" e.g. France, Germany, the European left AND extreme right, et al, don't seem to get the threat of Islamofacism and see us as the source of all evil in. I'm of European descent, all 4 grandparents emmigrated to the US from Europe at the turn of the century ( Italy, Ireland, Russia, how's that for an all-American pedigree) We still have a house in Bari, Italy. Maybe one of the things that shaped my outlook as a child was hearing my grandmother saying over and over again that she "kissed the ground of this country" when she got here ( it sounded cuter in an Italian accent).What is going on, my heart is breaking that our natural allies have turned against us. Why??? I'm holding on to the hope that there are still some left in the continent of my anscestors who will NOT let us stand alone. And THANK GOD for the Australians. I'm also a third gen. NYC resident, and was in Manhattan on 9/11. I will NEVER, til the day I die, forget how I felt that day. It changed me forever, and I've been a one issue voter since that morning...Destroy the Islamofacists before they destroy us. Do the citizens of Europe seriously believe these maniacs can be reasoned with? Do they seriously believe they are not under the biggest threat to their way of life in modern history? Do they spare a thought for the Margaret Hassan's and Ken Bigley's of the world? Did they ever care that the Iraqi's were being slaughtered by the tens of thousands at the will of Saddam Hussein? I believe that George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, and all the world leaders who stand with us, are dedicating their political careers to this threat, however unpopular, and they are my heroes.

Posted by: Pam at October 24, 2004 at 11:31 PM

T Hansen, good stuff! I wholeheartedly agree.

Posted by: jorgen at October 24, 2004 at 11:51 PM

Posted by: Tom at October 24, 2004 at 11:28 AM

Indeed, just as i am worried about the mass genocide in Turkey around the same time as Saddam, and the famines (due to the Government's fault) in North Korea, that left thousands upon thousands dead.

The difference is that I don't advocate war (or "regime change") as a method to solve such crises.

If the regimes are causing the deaths of thousands of their own people, why wouldn't you call for regime change? Do you think they will change their ways, because you give them a thorough tounge-lashing?

Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at October 25, 2004 at 01:00 AM

Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2004 at 09:23 PM

The Guardian. Read it, watch Fox News, go to middle ground, find truth.

Harry Tuttle proved you wrong on theoretical grounds, I'll prove you wrong on the practical.

Actually, Fox News is the middle ground. In content analysis of tv news coverage of the third debate, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN all broadcast over-whelmingly positive comments about Kerry and negative comments about Bush. Only, Fox News, which still had more positive Kerry comments than Bush comments, but it was balanced.

The Guardian is a left-wing fringe rag, that has clearly gone off the rails.

Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at October 25, 2004 at 01:26 AM

Getting to this a bit late:

Okay Andrea, I'll just sit here in the corner and suck on this turd while you delete my dissent. After all, freedom is on the march....
No, Mr. Eagle, I'm not going to delete your "dissent." Because quite frankly it's fucking hilarious. Of course, we're laughing at you, not with you. (Leon take note: there is a difference.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 25, 2004 at 01:29 AM

Posted by: Pam at October 24, 2004 at 11:31 PM

Do the citizens of Europe seriously believe these maniacs can be reasoned with? Do they seriously believe they are not under the biggest threat to their way of life in modern history? Do they spare a thought for the Margaret Hassan's and Ken Bigley's of the world? Did they ever care that the Iraqi's were being slaughtered by the tens of thousands at the will of Saddam Hussein? I believe that George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, and all the world leaders who stand with us, are dedicating their political careers to this threat, however unpopular, and they are my heroes.

Pam, these Euro and American lefties believe that America is the source of all evil. If America just didn't support the Zionists, the Palestinians would be peaceful, loving, caring people focused on their underwater basketweaving hobby. If American were only not so powerful, so rich, so destructive of the environment and so imperialistic, the Muslims wouldn't feel threatened and wouldn't be out there slaughtering children. Therefore, a peaceful world requires the destruction of America as we know it and replaced by socialist America.

Yes, Pam, these people really, really think that way. I'll leave it to the doctors to decide, if this is clinical insanity.

Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at October 25, 2004 at 01:34 AM

By the way: people? When quoting someone, could you please use some form of demarcation to indicate which parts of your comment are a quote from someone else? Quotation marks, blockquoting, italics, asterixes -- something. It would really keep pointless "you said--! no I didn't--!" arguments down to a minimum, and take some of the strain off the server. I don't want to have to shut off comments here again, but I am getting to that point.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 25, 2004 at 01:35 AM

I see the humor in Charlies Brooker column. Here's another one of those dark jokes (roman satire if you like).

Somebody flies a plane into the Guardian headquarters and the bastards are all burning or being crushed alive. Hundreds of the fuckers, from the publisher down to the cockroach-office-support-staff. Burning! Burning! like only leftist shitbags can burn. Charlie jumps out of his office window rather than get burned but spectators throw him back inside. (now here's the funny part) It's take-your-kid-to-work day at the guardian.

I bet that one would crack up the London leftists. I'll even give it to Charlie to use in his next 'column'.

Posted by: Arty at October 25, 2004 at 01:42 AM

When I was in Ireland I could not believe the idiotic comments made to me about the US. They have fucking clue about this country. I was treated to every anti-American myth imaginable. “Only rich white people go to college” “ No social safety nets” “50 million without healthCARE” …….. on and on and on. Their minds were like glue traps for anything derogatory thing they ever heard about the US. Serves some kind of psychic need or something, I don't know. It was ugly.

Posted by: Eddie Graziano, USA at October 25, 2004 at 01:52 AM

Alas, my necromantic powers are unequal to the task, else I would gladly revive Oswald...in exchange for calling Oliver Cromwell out of his grave.

Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue at October 25, 2004 at 01:54 AM

T Hansen — "I canīt help wonder how would Europe have reacted if what happened 9/11 happened to Europe, and how would the USA have reacted ?"

They'd demand to know why the US wasn't doing something about it, of course, and angrily order us to send the carriers...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 25, 2004 at 01:57 AM

>Burning! Burning! like only leftist shitbags can burn.

LOL! I see the Roman Satire now!

Posted by: jorgen at October 25, 2004 at 01:59 AM

"They'd demand to know why the US wasn't doing something about it, of course, and angrily order us to send the carriers..."

Indeed. Unfortunately for them, they've squandered most of whatever sympathy we might have felt. If there's another 9/11-type attack and it's aimed at Europe, I hope we lecture them on root causes and leave them to try to cobble their own defense out of whatever is available over there.

Posted by: Mike at October 25, 2004 at 02:05 AM

To Jabba the Tutt - Yes, I suppose you're right. I keep hoping something, anything, will occur to unite us against this madness. I am so afraid that, just to spite America, Europeans will destroy themselves and their civilization, something the Islamofacists see they can manipulate to their advantage. For the record, not that I have any hope of reaching any entrenched leftist fanatics, I am NOT a right winger, I'm not even Republican. I'm actually a reg. Dem, the spawn of union member, working class, Queens NY parents. ( don't throw anything at me people, I can't go to Dem sites anymore, they're scary) With the exception of Rudy Guiliani, I've never voted Republican in my life. I will now, as I said, I'm a one issue voter these days. And I'll go further - I don't care if there were ever WMD's in Iraq, I'm glad we went in, I further hope we will get the opportunity to continue to advance a sea change throughout the entire ME. Finally, although my husband was Jewish ( he passed) and one of my grandmothers was born a Jew, I was raised Catholic, and still practice my religion. I am offended and frightened by the extreme anti-Semitism I also see bubbling up in European left wing discourse. We haven't learned ANYTHING, apparently. What a world.

Posted by: Pam at October 25, 2004 at 02:07 AM

Slightly OT: Folks whenever the JFK assassination comes up I get crazy if I don't get my 2cents in. Please excuse me! Anybody who has seriously looked into the crime for more than a few hours cannot seriously contend that Oswald killed JFK alone. I contend that except at Tippet, it's unlikely he even fired a shot on that day. I know what CASE CLOSED says. The MSM is hanging its hat on that book; like the swiftboat controversey the MSM has simply tuned out on this. So please don't lump the deviant Oswald in with Booth and Hinkley, HE COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT. The physics don't work. Thanks, I needed that.

Posted by: kjo at October 25, 2004 at 02:10 AM

FU— "They don't like to read either - it would be interesting ask what are your three favorite books on the Middle East?" — I'm partial to The Satanic Verses, tho that seems to upset them for some reason.

FU — "Europeans opposed the attack on Iraq because their parents and grandparents know what it's like to bombed." Oh, give it a rest. The number of Americans who have first-hand knowledge of war since that self-inflicted wound of yours in the 40's FAR outstrips the comparable European population. This is like Paul Verhoeven's blather about how Americans don't understand war the way he does (he was sperm in WWII)... and then going on to fuck up Starship Troopers.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 25, 2004 at 02:12 AM

kjo and any other Kennedy obsessive: I will delete any further OFF TOPIC posts on this matter. John F. Kennedy is DEAD, and I don't care if he was killed by Oswald or Nixon or the Mafia or Gray Aliens. Please keep your sad little hobbies on sad little forums dedicated to that well-chewed subject.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 25, 2004 at 02:16 AM

Boy, I got here late!

Leon -- stop apologizing for this prick. If Charlier intended satire, he screwed up. If he was serious, he screwed up. Either way, he is stupid.

I'm sure that you feel for him (God knows why), but actions have consequences. If the right has a mantra, that's it. And since Charlie inserted his organ of regeneration into the meat grinder all by himself, he really doesn't need someone to hold his hand while we gleefully turn the crank.

Excuse me, I need to shoot some e-mails off to the Garudain and British authorities.....

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 25, 2004 at 02:40 AM

Jay posted:

He later emailed us how glad he was to get back to England where a sandwich was a sandwich and he didn't have to make decisions.
Dingdingdingdingding!

Jay, I think you just perfectly summed up the difference between Europeans and Americans.

They may have gotten rid of most of their kings, but in their hearts most Europeans are still subjects.

We're NOT.

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at October 25, 2004 at 03:11 AM

13rimes -- I seem to recall Alec Baldwin's remarks being something along the lines of "in other countries, Henry Hyde would be stoned to death for what he's doing..." I'm curious to know if Mr. Baldwin is aware of what happens to people in some countries when they speak critically of their leaders.

Posted by: Emily at October 25, 2004 at 03:34 AM

You may have already seen this...The Guradian site has been hacked...
Katz said the Guardian's Web site came under attack on Sunday, by "presumably politically inspired" hackers. The editor said he and 53 members of the newspaper's staff were also buried under an onslaught of more than 700 spam e-mails each, many of which promoted conservative political causes.via Cnet News com

Posted by: martin at October 25, 2004 at 03:36 AM

Hee hee hee... looks like the guardian is having to swallow some of it's own medicine!! nyeh nyeh nyeh *gloating now*

Posted by: Steve at the pub at October 25, 2004 at 04:10 AM

To add insult to injury, the Guardian reporter stiffed the county $25 for the voter registration list.

Posted by: julie at October 25, 2004 at 04:35 AM

Emily — Nope. He then went on to say we should kill Hyde and the Republicans and kill their families, too.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 25, 2004 at 05:20 AM

I told my 15 year old daughter about the guardian story last night. She almost started crying and in the grand tradition of my family, went on a 15 minute rant. Liberals make children cry! would be my headline of the day.

She did say something I've been feeling for sometime. She almost wishes Bush isn't elected because there is so much hate directed at him..I've had a bad feeling (non-pyschic) that something very bad is going to happen to him in his second term. This story only confirms it. These people are nuts.

My absentee ballot is sitting on top of the fridge right now, I've actually thought about not voting, but I know in my heart that tomorrow I'll sit down and connect the arrow for Bush/Cheney. Will I be sealing Bush's fate? At least we'll still have Cheney. The democratic party as we know it is over and they will have contributed to an assasination of a President. They may help write Bushes obiturary--but they will be writing their own as well.

Posted by: Kelly at October 25, 2004 at 05:39 AM

The UK is not as fastidious as the USA over the right to free speech. I hope the UK government does something about this.

Are you under the impression that Tony Blair could have the editor of the Guardian arrested?

Posted by: Harry Hutton at October 25, 2004 at 05:53 AM

The Guardian's elitist mentality seems to be entrenched in an Elizabethen [sic] perception of British superiority. In fact, it harks back to when William the Conqueror overtook England and replaced all British [sic] rulers with French Aristocracy. The British aristocracy still speak French and look down on the normal population of England who are not nearly as stupid as they like to think.

The population of England is extremely stupid, I’m afraid. Any analysis of the modern United Kingdom that fails to take into account the brutish pig-ignorance of its inhabitants is bound to be flawed. I spent thirteen years in the British education system and I can barely count my own toes.

Apart from that this analysis was pitch-perfect. I happen to be a French-speaking aristocrat myself, and a very great deal of my amour propre comes from our defeat of the Spanish Armada.

Posted by: Harry Hutton at October 25, 2004 at 05:57 AM

This reminds me of Craig Kilborn's vile, anti-Bush "Snipers Wanted" bit during the 2000 election.

Posted by: MDP at October 25, 2004 at 06:13 AM

Brooker needs a rabies shot, there's way too much foaming at the mouth from the Guardian.

Posted by: Jeremy at October 25, 2004 at 06:17 AM

Richard Mcenroe, thanks for the mail list of the Crapian! Just sent some e-mails winging their way towards Britain....

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 25, 2004 at 06:34 AM

Apparently the Secret Service was paying attention. Check this out. http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/cover102504.htm

Posted by: Jeremy at October 25, 2004 at 07:00 AM

Leon even Jack Valenti diagree's with you:

"Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, wrote Baldwin: "However it was said it’s not something you use as a joke, it’s not something you parody. This is incendiary."

You see humor where none exists and pardon leftist rhetoric that attempts to beguile viewers and readers that we should laugh and lift a pint to our brothers in good cheer, when in fact some are pounding plows into swords.

"This is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put."

Posted by: 13times at October 25, 2004 at 07:19 AM

Hansen: Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Eddie Graziano: I would wager that just about everyone in Ireland has a relative, distant or not so distant, in the States (or Australia). And I haven't yet heard of any mass exodus back to the Ould Sod because of the hellish living conditions and abject healthcare Irish Americans are forced to endure here in the States. In fact, I don't see a mass exodus of Americans back to anywhere. I've noticed, strangely enough, that lots of people still want to come here, despite the fact that we are ruled by the AntiChrist.

I visited Ireland back in the early '80's, when it was still an economic basket-case filled with pro-American folks who talked to me about how they were hoping to get a visa and move to Boston or Chicago to live with cousin Sean. The Celtic Tiger years seem to have changed all that. Instead of getting modest checks from uncle Pat in Philly, the Irish are getting fat subsidies from the EU now and are thus eager to prove that the cabbage and bacon days are over and they're just as "sophisticated" as their fellow Euros on the Continent and Britain. If that means pissing on the U.S. so be it.

Posted by: Donna V. at October 25, 2004 at 07:29 AM

MDP:

This reminds me of Craig Kilborn's vile, anti-Bush "Snipers Wanted" bit during the 2000 election.

Anyone have a 3rd example of leftist humor?

Leon I defy you to find 3 right-wing examples in print or broadcast/cable media where a rightist used humor as a free speech shield.

Posted by: 13times at October 25, 2004 at 07:42 AM

So it was a satire making fun of crazy leftist?

Posted by: aaron at October 25, 2004 at 07:52 AM

I sent my e-mails two days ago, and got this response from Jon Freedland:
"So Britain appeased Hitler, did it? So all that stuff about Winston Churchill, the Battle of Britain and Britain's fighting the Nazis entirely
alone in 1940 is all nonsense is it? Or could it be that you know absolutely NOTHING?
JF"
I sent this in reply today:

Mr. Freedland,
I do remember Mr. Churchill's handling of things. I was speaking of before he was allowed to do anything about it. Back when he was labeled a nutcase for trying to warn your government of what was coming. And perhaps if your country had paid attention to him sooner, you may have not had to endure all the hardships you went through when he finally was listened to.
The fact that in the end your government DID wake up to it does not negate the fact that the policies before the awakening were of appeasement. Take Czechoslovakia, for example. Hitler's tactics towards gaining land from that country were the same that Arafat is using against Israel. First he implied that the Czechs had stolen the land, thus inciting the resident Germans to rioting, etc. (This land was never part of Germany) When the Czech Republic tried to put down these uprisings, they were condemned by the very countries that promised to support them. They were then told they must give it back to Germany, and promised protection if Germany ever tried to invade. Interestingly enough, if they had kept this land, they could have defended themselves from Germany indefinitely. Then, the countries that promised them protection, of which yours was one, stood back and allowed Hitler to take them over.
Is this enough of a history lesson, or would you like more?
Mr. Freedland, your insults notwithstanding, do not assume I am some rural hick with no knowledge of what I'm speaking about. Perhaps you should do some digging into your own country's history before you make such a vehement denial of the facts.
Then you can also consider, that when America did join the war, we saved your butts. And speaking of butts, unless you want to come here, become an American, and cast your vote with the rest of us, BUTT OUT!
Respectfully,
Sunnie Cravens
Think he'll look it up?

Posted by: Sunnie at October 25, 2004 at 07:56 AM

I thought that was called parody.

Posted by: aaron at October 25, 2004 at 08:05 AM

The Guardian has pulled the column. Glenn at Instapundit links to their "explanation/apology".

Posted by: Pam at October 25, 2004 at 08:30 AM

The Gruaniad has issued a mealy mouth apology

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/tvradio/story/0,14676,1335307,00.html

Apparently the sicko "deplores violence of any kind" - although he admits to finding murder a great subject for jokes in newspapers.

These people make me sick.

Posted by: bernieGrant at October 25, 2004 at 08:33 AM

Sunday October 24, 2004
The Guardian

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

Posted by: Yoo Hoo at October 25, 2004 at 08:47 AM

An apology, eh? Well, I stand by my words -- Charlie Brooker is stupid for having said that in the first place.

And in the second place, that he even thought it might be funny is telling of the "sense of humor" for the crowd he hangs out with. If that includes his co-workers, yup, there's a problem in the Gruaaidn.

PS to all leftoids who wish to apologize for Mr. Brooker -- you can't talk your way around this one. He apologized and the paper pulled the column. If you want to bitch about the latest VRWC Effort To Crush Dissent (which this is not), go to Kos, Democratic Underground, or some other cyber-loonie bin.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 25, 2004 at 09:06 AM

Charlie Brooker knew what he was doing

He knows that calling for someone to be murdered is not joke material.

He cannot get away with this. There must be legal consequences.

Posted by: BernieGrant at October 25, 2004 at 09:09 AM

"Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action "

quoting myself here:

You see humor where none exists and pardon leftist rhetoric that attempts to beguile viewers and readers

Sod off Guardian

Posted by: 13times at October 25, 2004 at 09:15 AM

What you are seeing here is a textbook example of the arrested adolescence of the "progressive" Left.

Brooker's line of tripe was absolutely unremarkable in the 60's. in hundreds of cheap lefty broadsheets like the old LA Free Press. Hell, even P.J. O'Roarke has reminisced about writing for such.

The point is, it isn't the 1960's anymore, and the worldview of the left has not matured, evolved or even noticeably changed in forty-some years.

Every world event is our new Vietnam. Everyone who disagrees with the parlor pinks is a worse fascist than Hitler. Nothing ever changes. They simply never grow up. They peaked in their sophomore year and damned if they're gonna move on.

Hell, I go to the marches and I think some of these people have pulled the same flags and signs out that they carried in '68.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 25, 2004 at 09:19 AM

T. Hansen, I enjoyed your thoughtful post. My grandparents emigrated from Svendborg and Aarhus. I've been to Denmark a couple of times and as an American I am so proud of Danish support for the US at this time. The Danes have a history of moral backbone during difficult times (i.e. massive and secret evacuation of Jews from Denmark during Nazi occupation). I too am sorry about the rift between Americans and Europeans, and I hope that it will not last. However, the USA must do what is right, even if it is unpopular.

Posted by: New Jersey Sue at October 25, 2004 at 09:46 AM

T Hansen, I apologize -- I should have read your post earlier. In spite of my harsh words to the Guardian (and they are harsh, deliberately so), I wish that Europe was on our side. My father was a WWII veteran, and spoke only good of the British he fought along side with. The good Brits are still there, they just have to hide from their fellow citizens.

I know some of the history of Denmark in WWII, and I am glad to hear that spirit is not gone. Thank you for your kind thoughts and hopes. We all need them in this time of insanity.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 25, 2004 at 10:03 AM

The Guardian: "...his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand."

"On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

— Oh, please, you're killing me, here, funnier than Python, more stylish than Wodehouse... and they say British comedy is dead...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 25, 2004 at 10:15 AM

nj sue, well said. i agree with you so much i may have to kiss you.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 25, 2004 at 10:34 AM

Tim Blair, a mistake in genetic selection.

Posted by: Cloned Poster at October 25, 2004 at 10:56 AM

Hey 'Real Jeffs' - please excuse the off-topic inquiry, were you quoting David Drake / Steve Stirling (organ - meat-grinder analogy)? If so, can quite see why - Brooker & his Guardianistas remind me of the 'avocati' from the Drangosh River...

regards

Posted by: RJ at October 25, 2004 at 10:58 AM

I'm not defending Charlie Brooker because the man's clearly a wanker of the highest order, nor am I saying that I found his article remotely funny, because I got a red mist in front of my eyed when I read it, and had to go and have a cup of tea before I was calm enough to ping off an angry email to the Guardian, but that doesn't mean I don't know it was meant to be humourous rather than a serious call to assassination.

Back in the 1980s when Mrs Thatcher was busy saving the UKs economy and restoring some small measure of self respect to the nation, she was widely despised by the left (and she despised them right back, God bless her). A common 'bumper sticker' joke was "Guy Fawkes, where are you when we need you" Guy Fawkes being a seventeenth century revolutionary who unsuccessfully tried to blow up the king, the royal family and both houses of Parliament. It wasn't funny, but nor was it a serious call to murder Mrs T. Nobody in Britain thought it was. This article falls into the same catagory.

Brookers garbage wasn't designed to make Americans laugh. It was designed to amuse inappropriately self righteous, ammoral Guardian readers laugh and it probably worked. That doesn't mean Americans shouldn't feel offended, because it was offensive, but it just makes Guardian readers wankers not wannabe murderers.

Don't make these pathetic people out to be more than they really are.

Posted by: James Hamilton, UK at October 25, 2004 at 11:15 AM

LOL! RJ, as a matter of fact -- yes! I've read most of S.M. Stirling and David Drake's books. Good stuff!

And, yeah, Brooker is very much like the avocati! Smelly and not wanted.......

(For those not familiar with the "Raj Whitehall" military science fiction series, written by Drake and Stirling, check out the teasers at Baen Books; scroll down to "Raj Whitehall Series".)

Back on topic, please......


Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 25, 2004 at 11:18 AM

"Don't make these pathetic people out to be more than they really are."

James, by and large, I ignore much of this crap. Because, as you say, it comes from pathetic people.

But the Guardian claims to be a major newspaper;I hear for and against on that. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Is this responsible behavior for a major newspaper? It's bad enough that major news rags in the USA routinely print mistakes as facts (e.g., the New York and LA Times). Or that lunatics use their celebrity status to spread their lunacy (e.g., Susan Saradon from the USA, or the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Wangari Maathai). All of this is under open and free debate, including Mr. Brooker.

But there is a line here, of behavior that some people will not accept. Mr. Brooker hinted (to be polite) that the President of the United States should be assassinated, with a "nudge nudge" and a hearty "Geddit? Funny, huh?"

Nope. Not funny. Even in peace time, there are people willing to take down the President for whatever reason. We've had 4 Presidents assassinated, and multiple close calls. Most Americans take this seriously. Those that do not generally keep quiet, or restrict comments to personal friends.

Children are taught appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Apparently leftoid journos need the same training, for all that they are legal adults.

The Secret Service takes all such comments dead serious, by the way. It's against Federal law to threaten the President. Recently, they investigated a local high school kid who drew a cartoon in art class that threatened the President. Fact.

So, we aren't elevating these stupid pukes. We are slapping them down.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 25, 2004 at 11:32 AM

Is the Telegraph down also?

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 25, 2004 at 11:34 AM

Thank you James Hamilton, for your perspective :-) It does help to realize (as of course many others have mentioned here and elsewhere, and I have been telling myself) that to Brits this isn't as big a deal as it is to Americans, and that most don't even read the Guardian. I have dear cousins in England that (I believe) are Tories, and of course I don't associate this with them at all, nor with most other Britons.

But I've been corresponding (casually, about music mostly) for some years with a 50-something man in England who about a year ago advised me I should be reading the Guardian instead of the Telegraph, and I am becoming more and more appalled thinking about him. Haven't heard from him since Operation Clark Co. began...hmmm... :-)

Posted by: suellen at October 25, 2004 at 11:55 AM

The Real Jeffs,

Nope not funny, but not serious a serious threat of assassination either, at least not understood to be such by those reading it in the UK, though I agree with the point about Pym Fortyn. US law doesn't extend to the UK, and it's not a crime here to have written what he's written, even though it is very offensive.

The best course of action is to email the Press Complaints Commission at:

1 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JB

Help Line: +44 20 7353 3732
Switchboard: +44 20 7353 1248
Facsimile: +44 20 7353 8355
Textphone: +44 20 7583 2264
E-mail: complaints@pcc.org.uk
Scottish Help Line: +44 131 220 6652
Welsh Help Line: +44 29 2039 5570
24 hour Press Office line: +44 7669 195539

The more calm communications they recieve the more censure the Guardian will receive, though it won't be much.

Off topic, thanks for the tip about SM Stirling, I'm just getting into his books.

James


Posted by: James Hamilton, UK at October 25, 2004 at 12:03 PM

Suellen,

Stick to the Telegraph. It's resolutely right of centre. Although it's often seen as a right wing version of the Guardian, I've never seen it display the same ignorant offensiveness to the left that the Guardian consistently displays to the right.

It's worth reading just for Mark Steyn's. column

James

Posted by: James Hamilton, UK at October 25, 2004 at 12:13 PM

James, I appreciate your thoughts and your points. You are quite correct that this is not an offense within the UK, and I should have made myself clear on that. But it was offensive and uncalled for, which was my concern, especially after the Clark County fiasco.

In my defense, I note that *my* e-mails are aimed at the Guardians' staff, and not the British people. I winced at some of the messages from my fellow citizens printed by the Guardian over the Clark County fiasco. All my e-mails were polite, and lacked obscenities, but were a trifle sarcastic. And they weren't printed, either. :-(

On Stirling/Drake....enjoy! Good stuff! And if you decide you like military SF, both authors have a LOT of that in print. Plus there's John Ringo, David Weber, and.....whoops! I'd best get back OT!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 25, 2004 at 12:33 PM

Suellen, James Hamilton — The Telegraph page seems to be back up... with a comical opinion by Luttwak claiming that Kerry, if elected, would be a military and fiscal hawk...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 25, 2004 at 12:35 PM

Once again, the Guardian takes a giant step into the darkness, and steps into a steaming fresh cow-pie. These guys are getting more comical than Mad Magazine at its best. Their chief editors must have all been trained in Zimbabwe - there's no other explanation as to how they can be this totally imbecilic.

Attacking the Guardian is the wrong approach, though. We need a person in England to actually buy a copy of their Sunday edition (we will grant you absolution, since you'd be doing this for a good cause), and go through it, page by page. Cut out all the advertising, and make a list. The rest of us can do Google searches for the business offices of these advertisers, and start writing THEM letters and sending emails. A typical letter/email should read:

"I understand you advertise in the Guardian. I hope you realize that the Guardian has made more enemies for England than any single entity since Captain Cook. While most of us are intelligent enough to understand that advertising does not necessarily equal endorsement, we do wish that you would find a new way to advertise your product. You would be doing us, yourself, and all of England a favor by doing so."

Posted by: Old Patriot at October 25, 2004 at 12:49 PM

13times:

You were looking for more examples of leftist 'humor.'

I believe someone already mentioned The Village Voice article (play review, actually) by Feingold calling for the extermination of Republicans.

The St. Petersburg (Florida) Democrat Party ran an ad in the Gulfport Gabbler (local newspaper) calling for Donald Rumsfeld to be shot. I don't know if this last counts, tho, because they weren't joking.

They said it was 'just a figure of speech.'

I won't be voting for any democrat in the foreseeable future, even if an individual one seems pretty good. The party needs to be slapped down so it can grow up.

Posted by: Persnickety at October 25, 2004 at 12:55 PM

The Guardian must learn or perhaps re-learn that voracity does nothing for veracity.
whatever biased or distotive articles they publish are justified under democracy.
However the daily telegraph, whose views may be offensive to those of Guardian readers are seldom vitriolic or hateful in their opinions.
However much one would disagree with Guardian articles claiming that 'Israel has no right to exist' for example, one must not accept the vitriol along with the arguments.
This is where the Guardian fails, or should i say the editors of the Guardian and are found sadly lacking in allowing it to become "A HATE RAG".
Of course the sensible leftists realise this and the result will be further sharp drops in readership.

Posted by: davo at October 25, 2004 at 01:12 PM

T.Hansen

When you said:

Im proud of my country ( spite itīs glory days of Wikings and having the worldīs largest fleet are long since past )
I must respectfully disagree.

The "Glory Days" for Denmark were from 1940-1945.

Never forget that. Harold Godwinson may have beat the stuffing out of Harald Hardraada's Vikings. Nelson may have put the cleaners through the Danish Navy at Copenhagen. Such glories are fleeting. But nothing, nothing can ever take away what Denmark did in WWII. Ordinary human beings like the guy with the comical name, G.F.Duckwitz, who by acting like decent human beings, saved thousands from slaughter. People like your parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. If the rest of Europe had shown even half the degree of spine that the Danes did, then the Holocaust would have been averted. 98.5% of Denmark's Jews survived. Even at the end, when they'd been sent to concentration camps, the Danish Government didn't give up, and managed to save most of them.

If more people studied history, idiocies like the Guardians' would be rarer. And Denmark would be given the world renown she deserves. Even Aussies just stand back in awe at what you guys did - and you may have noticed, we're not easily impressed.

Posted by: Alan E Brain at October 25, 2004 at 01:22 PM

Everyone who's cottoned onto the oh-c'mon-it's-only-a-joke defence knows what's really going on here. It's called cowardice. People too afraid to express their views do so by formatting them in such a way that when called upon to defend them have a convenient exit. It's a common tactic that many people now accept, but once you're aware of it the divide between cowardice and courage appears so large that it's difficult to think of people like Charlie Brooker and the Guardian editors as being anything but craven.

Posted by: Hanyu at October 25, 2004 at 01:33 PM

13times, persnickety — Leftist humor? There's a fella running for superintendant of education in Washington State (stand in California, look east, and turn a HARD left) on the platform that Bush should be tried and executed. Only I don't think he's joking...

And let's face, it we know the Guardian is full of it because true leftists are the most humorless berks on the face of the earth. Really, Al Franken is as funny as they get, so go rent Stuart Little and prove my point for me. So when a leftist tells you, 'I was only kidding,' what they mean is, 'Oh, crap, you got between me and the exit...'

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 25, 2004 at 01:42 PM

Alan is right -and only Italy who lost some 8000 Jews of its 60,000, showed any "spine".
Holland in contrast to "fascist italy", looked upon as a example of humanistic democracy, lost 100,000 of its 160,000 jews.
The worst record in western europe.
(srce daniel goldhagen.)

Posted by: davo at October 25, 2004 at 02:29 PM

Well, if "flippant and tasteless" is what passes for British political wit these days, I suppose we'll have to accept it.

For my part, I wouldn't have written the Guardian. They don't know.

Mr. Hamilton, I don't recall the last succesful political assassination in England. Can you enlighten me?

Posted by: Janis Gore at October 25, 2004 at 04:00 PM

Dear Editors at The Guardian:

As an American, I am appalled at the latest episode of your junk journalism aimed at President Bush. Charlie Brooker's recent column not only calls for the assassination of our President, it uses shoddy simile and metaphor to denigrate him. Referring to "haunted tree" Kerry and Bush, Brooker says: ...in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I'd favour.

In an obvious effort to mislead his readers, Brooker does not sufficiently specify plant material in making his ridiculous comparison and rude jest that leads to faulty conclusion. We trust you will correct the record with a more factual representation, such as in the following: in a fight between a haunted wormy hollow log and a flowering though intimidating thorny bush, I know who I'd favor.

You may also wish to add that:
Between a donkey and an elephant,
a mortician and a cowboy,
a chameleon and a cur,
an empty shirt and working jeans,
a Euro weenie and American hotdog,
continental brioche and Texas toast,
and a patrician prick and a George with Dick,
there is no contest and no doubt as to who is the better "thing" to save the civilized world.
Metaphorically and actually.

Regards,
G.A.F.F.E.S.

Posted by: Girls Against Fact Free Election Symbology at October 25, 2004 at 04:27 PM

Janis, I think it must have been Ian Gow, a Conservative backbencher, some time in the late 80s. The IRA put a bomb under his car at his home in Eastbourne. I seem to remember it being quite a sophisticated mercury device that tipped when the car moved and triggered the explosion.

In 1979 or 1980 quite an important politician -Airey Neave- was murdered by a different Irish Republican group. He was very close to Mrs Thatcher. He was quite an impressive figure- when he was younger he escaped from Colditz.

The only time we ever had a Prime Minister assassinated was during the Napoleonic wars.

Posted by: Harry Hutton at October 25, 2004 at 05:09 PM

By the way, the great-great-whatever grandson of the assassin is now a Conservative Member of Parliament. Somebody Bellingham.

Posted by: Harry Hutton at October 25, 2004 at 05:25 PM

Thank you, Mr. Hutton. It wasn't a flip question.

Posted by: Janis Gore at October 25, 2004 at 05:28 PM

Alan, I agree with your sentiments. What the Danes did in WWII took enormous balls.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 25, 2004 at 05:45 PM

re Freedom of speech - Something Americans talk a lot about about seem to complain about when people express opinions that differ one degree from their own.

A couple of yards above someone wrote: "This site is privately owned and run, so the owners can do whatever they damn well please with it."

Isn't The Guardian privately own and run?

Also ... why don't English comedies make it big on American TV? They get remade and retitled. English and Americans may speak the same language but they don't have the same humour. Satire requires a cultural understanding ...

Also a few yards above:
"Interesting that the people who profess to believe in "understanding other cultures" have next to no understanding of or sympathy for ( or even curiousity about) the culture of flyover America, even though the opinions and choices of middle Americans ultimately effects their lives and the world much more than the lifestyle of the Zimmi-Zammi tribe of outer Patagonia does."

That's the problem ... why should middle Americans control my destiny in Australia? I don't get to vote for or against Bush but he gets to decide whether my country goes to war.

Posted by: klaatu69 at October 25, 2004 at 09:02 PM

Isn't The Guardian privately own and run?

So? That doesn't protect them from criticism. You know, other people exercising their free speech rights.

That being said, I suppose this was another variation of the "meaningless 'free speech' strawman" that Quentin mentioned above...people seizing onto the fact the freedom of speech isn't absolutely and always guaranteed (inciting the assassination of a President, shouting 'Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.) and claiming, based on that and some strained logic, that Americans are hypocrites when they talk about free speech rights. Try again, Anne.

Here's my attempt at some strained logic: Since you're claiming that the opinions of the people on this blog thread merely "differ one degree" from Brooker's opinion, and you also seem to differ at least one degree from the opinions expressed by other posters above, does that mean you agree with what Brooker wrote?

Faulty logic is fun, isn't it?

BTW, if you feel that "middle Americans control your destiny" by voting for George Bush, they'd presumably also control your destiny by voting for John Kerry. Tough situation, to be so completely helpless...

Posted by: PW at October 25, 2004 at 10:41 PM

Boy oh boy am I late to this one. Jebus take a holiday to no cable internet land and miss one of the greatest take downs of the week.

For my money this represents the misunderstanding the left has of liberal/libertarian principles.

As P.J.O'Rourke once pointed out (in 'give war a chance' I think) the left always try to say you can't make fun of x, and the example PJ used was the diasabled, PJ then recounted the great and terrible joke of Helen Keller falling down a well and breaking four fingers calling for help. The point being you always can make fun, the moral question is whether you should.

The left always want to weasel out of the responsibility for the consequencies of what you say.

Posted by: Just Another Bloody Lawyer at October 25, 2004 at 11:11 PM

Forgive me if I'm not following the points quite right here, but...

Freedom of speech - Something Americans talk a lot about about seem to complain about when people express opinions that differ one degree from their own....Isn't The Guardian privately own and run?
Yes, and so am I. That means I'm equally free to bitch and complain about the Guardian's bigoted, hate-filled, venomous, deceitful, lying lies from liar's lips that it calls "reporting". The Guardian is free to print whatever they want, and we are free to heckle them mercilessly to our heart's content. They can heckle us back, or, in this case, they realized they *did* say something stupid that could prove bad for their privately owned and run operation, and apologized, as I'd expect any American paper to do for wishing ill on Tony Blair. Being free to express one's ideas doesn't mean other people aren't equally free to explain why they believe those ideas to be ignorant and disgusting beyond imagination.
Also ... why don't English comedies make it big on American TV?...English and Americans may speak the same language but they don't have the same humour. Satire requires a cultural understanding ...
Men in drag just aren't funny. But seriously, "Coupling" is freakin' hilarious to us over here (those who have seen it) because it's about something we can all relate to. Someone was on drugs to try to do a remake, and by all means, it should be on the air. Things that are funny in and of themselves, like Monty Python sketches, go over very well, where satire, as you said, just doesn't translate.
why should middle Americans control my destiny in Australia? I don't get to vote for or against Bush but he gets to decide whether my country goes to war.
Well, no, Bush doesn't get to make that decision, John Howard does, and you get to vote for or against him. Sorry it didn't work out for you, but that happens to us over here about half the time, too.

However, entertaining your premise, correct me if I'm wrong here, but Australia appears to have a volunteer military. That's the beauty of the thing: If you don't support the causes your country goes to war over, you don't enlist, nobody "controls your destiny", and Bob's your uncle, as it were. If it's still bugging you, do more for the filthy, cowering hippies opposition next election. It'll be sad to see the economy go, but...

Posted by: Aaron at October 25, 2004 at 11:28 PM

"The real jeffs - T Hansen, I apologize -- I should have read your post earlier. In spite of my harsh words to the Guardian (and they are harsh, deliberately so), I wish that Europe was on our side."

There is no reason to apologize I understand your anger just want you to know that the europeans that is already on your side numbers quite many. And spite the loudspeakers found in the media a lot of Europeans I bet more than 30 % currently support Bush, and that number could easily grow.
Europe need your help though I canīt help smiling a little when so many outside Europe wonder which European state will endorse sharia first. But this smile can only freeze fast considering how taboo this subject is here. In short we need help putting the torch of liberty in flames over here.
Next time I can go and vote I will vote "danish Peopleīs party" a party that is sceptical when it comes to Islam, want to stop the immigration and is against the European Union but very PRO NATO and looking more over the atlantic for inspiration than towards Bruxelles. This party is relatively small 12-13 % but believe it will grow and it has been growing over the last years. Itīs today in part of the danish government but you donīt have to go that many years back to see about every party swearing against this party saying it would never work with it. But lately as a matter of fact the big parties have adopted some of itīs policies and as I already told made it part of a government only as support party though.

This brings me to another subject which very spells the reason of whatīs going on today. Nationalism or patriotism is so much of a taboo in Europe today. This is of-course much due to multiculturalism but now only that. Itīs very much due to the fact that most of the political elite in Europe is Pro EU and have been on virtual Hetz rampage against anything or anyone with nationalistic sentiment in any form or just sceptical about the european union. Any sceptic or opponent of EU have been labeled everything from just plain stupid, a woman of low or none education, an ultranationalist, a nazist etc. ( I am talking of the campaign as it was here in my country )The ironic is that even the partys that about as broad as possible supported the war in Iraq and voted for denmarkīs participating in it also labeled anyone sceptic about the European union thus as above mentioned, and said what happened in Ex-jugoslavia just showed how important it was that Europe can stand together in foreign policy ( which it could not, not in that question either ). Now those parties have made their own stand against a European common ground in European foreign policy - but they did the right thing and noone on the EU sceptic front which for the part of most of them happens to be in favor of their current position will hold them up to what they formerly said about European Foreign policy unity.
But national suicide and the deflation age old values in some cases just as much happens in the effort to create a European central power as it happens in the name of multiculturalism!
Of-course this Nationalist scare also goes back to the history of europe and some fatal experiences with nationalism. Maybe we should call ourself Patriots or just move to the US ? No. There is to much to fight for in Europe as it is now. Because the nationalism we stand for has nothing to do with what happened in Germany, it has nothing to do with rascism - I believe we have pretty good reasons to be very sceptical about Islam. But being an arab is not a crime in itself nor is an arab of less value. But still nationalism ( and nationalistic parties ) here is being subject of a virtual hate campaign equal of the one Bush is getting and in my experience this is going on in every european country.

"Mike - Indeed. Unfortunately for them, they've squandered most of whatever sympathy we might have felt. If there's another 9/11-type attack and it's aimed at Europe, I hope we lecture them on root causes and leave them to try to cobble their own defense out of whatever is available over there."

"Pam - Do the citizens of Europe seriously believe these maniacs can be reasoned with?"

Mike on some other forum I read about one girl who suffered a rape finding that Americans asking the question after 9/11 "why do they hate us" reminded her about how a girl feels, and asks if she done anything wrong, when she suffered a rape. That really makes you think. I will deeply apologize for Europeīs part in this - and hope you bear in mind that the support of many Europeans are stronger than ever.

And Pam I am afraid so atleast they hope - itīs my opinion and the opinion of increasing numbers here that they hate us for good, hate us whatever we do - they simply hate whatīs our culture is all about.

" New jersey Sue - T. Hansen, I enjoyed your thoughtful post. My grandparents emigrated from Svendborg and Aarhus. I've been to Denmark a couple of times and as an American I am so proud of Danish support for the US at this time."

I am from Aarhus and my family can be traced back to hereabouts since 1200 century. This I find is much part of what I am and why I think noone either moslems or Bruxelles shall tell me what to do or not, or to believe or not. But when that is said in fact i am internationalist, just with as much part nationalist as inter. There is however one thing greater to me than my nation or even the international world - That is the freedom of the individual. To me the individual is ever in danger from collective ideologies - that appears to be good for the individual but as matter of fact is based on one way or other oppressing individuals or atleast shaping them in some fixed image rather than to let em shape themselves. And maybe thatīs exactly one thing I like about America - and itīs not really a maybe thatīs one I very much like! That you can remember where you come from, be who you are, and still be a American.


" Alan E Brain - The "Glory Days" for Denmark were from 1940-1945."

I forgot that one yes we do have things to be proud of. I am also proud of that we did vote against the maastrict treaty spite 80 % of the press and 80 % of the politicians using every mean to get us to vote for it.
But nevertheless a lot changed with the 1864 defeat to Germany. and before that other events like Nelsonīs victory cause indeed it was his. However the outcome could probably been quite different if we werenīt subject to a surprise attack while our fleet was being refit and wasnīt able to fare the seas. Still in 1864 atleast we won at the sea.


Posted by: T Hansen at October 25, 2004 at 11:34 PM

I believe in the freedom of speech I sure as hell do but there has to be limits as there are limits to what one can perform physical without losing your right to move freely - Brooker maybe was joking but this one aint:

http://www.al-ghoul.com/interview_with_a_jihadi.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bakri_Muhammad

Both Should try a jail and the latter one for years to get out with a one way ticket in his hands.

Posted by: T Hansen at October 25, 2004 at 11:54 PM

Reading through the above comments, I'm genuinely confused: how can anyone think that Brooker's comments were an incitement to assasinate Bush? I'm not saying Brooker is the new Swift, but he's at least in line with the latter's Modest Proposal by proposing an obviously ridiculous solution to a problem, in order to raise a laugh. So, while I can see why a patriotic American or Bush supporter would not find Brooker's comment funny, I just can't see why it's caused such outrage, based on the assumtion that Brooker genuinely wants Bush dead. I don't see many Kerry supporters frothing at the suggestion that their man is a 'haunted tree' - a more obviously silly line, perhaps, but one that highlights the fact that the entire column is meant to be ridiculous, an overblown comedic rant, and not one to be taken so seriously.

Still, given that so many have chosen to see Brooker's column as analagous to the woefully misguided letter-writing campaign, as someone who would rather not see Bush return to the White House, I can only say it's a terrible shame that the Guardian seems to be doing so much to aid Bush in his campaign!

Posted by: Jack at October 26, 2004 at 04:27 AM

This thread is about over, Jack, you're a little late to the party,

but here is some information Real Jeffs provided above that you might have missed:

"The Secret Service takes all such comments dead serious, by the way. It's against Federal law to threaten the President."

If the Brits who read the Guardian insist that they should have a say in the American election, then they need to realize that they would also have to abide by our guidelines in regard to how the President is treated, and not throw invective like this around, any more than we do. They can't expect to have it both ways.

Posted by: suellen at October 26, 2004 at 04:59 AM

Not to mention, Jack, the so-called "joke" wasn't funny. It hasn't ever been funny, really.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 26, 2004 at 09:02 AM

"Somebody flies a plane into the Guardian headquarters and the bastards are all burning or being crushed alive. Hundreds of the fuckers, from the publisher down to the cockroach-office-support-staff. Burning! Burning! like only leftist shitbags can burn. Charlie jumps out of his office window rather than get burned but spectators throw him back inside. (now here's the funny part) It's take-your-kid-to-work day at the guardian."

Maybe a skilled pilot could hit the Guardian headquarters, but Charlie Brooker doesn't work at the paper, so if it's him you're after, it may be a bit of a waste of effort.

Oh, and you know that long list of email addresses that you printed re: the Clark County farrago? Yeah, very few of those are actual addresses. And FYI your carefully selected targets for spam include a theatre critic, a jazz reviewer, a cookery expert and an IT engineer that left the company about 3 months ago.

Posted by: the voice of reason at October 26, 2004 at 10:33 AM

"voice of reason" doesn't get the last word....

Next time, come a little earlier to the party. You might actually have a chance to say something intelligent. Nice try, but you failed on both counts.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 26, 2004 at 11:23 AM

There's also Bjorn Lomborg and all those great organizations, nice economy.
Denmark doesn't get the recognition it deserves, but I don't know if that's a bad thing. On of my favorite quotes is "It's amazing what can be accomplished when no one is concerned with credit."--Anonymous

Posted by: aaron at October 26, 2004 at 01:25 PM

Readers' Editor
Dear Mr Mayes

It is difficult to say which was the more craven, Brooker's Oct 23 piece or the 'apology' which The Guardian endorsed.

If the man is sorry, let him say so, not snidely imply that I thought what he said contemptible because I lack a sense of humour.

Yours again
Richard Smith

Posted by: Richard Smith at October 26, 2004 at 06:57 PM