It appears that The Guardian has “apologized” for its “flippant and tasteless” — (and jocular) ---- call for Bush’s assassination.
(italics are mine)
As much as I find the whole idea of this newspaper idiotic, I find the reactions to the comment of Charlie Brooker as disgusting hypocritical as one can get.
How come that you so easily forget the facts about the president and government of the USA?
- The fact that Bush not only thought, but said and repeated and brought into action his plan to murder the president of a sovereign nation, his family, his government.
- The fact that Bush indeed ordered more then once the assasination of the president of a sovereign nation, ordered to attack places where he thought he was, killed there innocent people as “colateral damage” in his attempt to assasinate the president of a sovereign nation.
- The fact that the USA under the lead of that same murderous president who clearly thinks he is God Chosen Murderer because he is president of the USA, invaded that sovereign nation in an attempt to do all the above, killing and still killing by now thousands and thousands of its citizens, including two sons of the president of that foreign nation, and quite a few of his family members an of his government, holds the president of that sovereign nation in custody, occupies that nation and acts as if the citizens of that nation not even have the tright to fight the invaders.
But a humoristic comment insinuating that the world would be better off without Bush is a scandal?
Can you explain - in detail - how you come to such a blatant hypocritical reasoning?
Salaam. A
What !!! The Guardian is antireligous ?? I like it even more now !
The Screen Burn, in the sat Guide, is the best bit of the whole paper, a gem.
Read it here: http://tinyurl.com/4wrul .Charlie Booker can do no wrong - suggesting the planet may be better off without you-know-who, just proves it.
Meanwhile i think the whole story is canny funny. I did learn about this yellow teeth stereotype some Americans have. I see what you did there. V good.
Sin
Let’s ignore the Belgian having the hissy fit in the corner, please…
I’m glad they clarified that this guy is a “humorist” (I use the quotes for a reason), because this story was already starting to get play on Drudge, etc. I can’t imagine a mainstream American newspaper going that far.
I had a man come up to the me on the subway yesterday–in Greenwich Village, heart of Kerry territory for sure–when I was just standing there waiting for the 6 train, reading the Sunday Times. He had a clipboard and started the conversation by pointing to a picture of the President and saying “Do you want to send this liar back to Texas?” blink blink “Well, I already plan to vote for Kerry, thanks.” “Well, I’m trying to sign up people to send letters to four people in swing states.” “That’s OK, actually I think that’s kind of rude.”
Now it was his turn to blink.
I continued, “How would you feel if you got a letter from a random stranger from Alabama or Texas trying to persuade you to vote for Bush?” He muttered something like how we all had to fight the liars, and then pointed to my Times. “That’s full of lies, too you know! They had Jayson Blair and scandal after scandal…!” “Yeah, I know,” I said, “and isn’t it amazing that Blair is still writing for them? You’d think they’d have fired him in disgrace or something!” 
The annoyed squint of the thwarted True Believer started to show as he edged away. “Why do you give your money to liars like the Times?” “OK, which paper tells the truth then?” “None of them! They’re ALL lies!” he said as he started to walk away towards the next group, who had been watching the street theater with amusement. “Well, don’t worry, I don’t believe everything I read in anything!” I said as I waved the paper at him cheerfully.
My right hand to God this is exactly what happened. I’m glad that the Dope had prepared me with ripostes instead of the usual slack-jawed astonishment and laughter these types of people usually get from me. He was a middle-aged white guy, slightly disheveled, but entirely serious and not crazy, and he was convinced he was helping Kerry this way. Imagine if I had been on the fence about Kerry; he would have pushed me right off into Red Country. And if I had written I would have been a nice polite non-condescending fellow American.
So, to the Guarniad–thanks but no thanks, chaps.
Mehitabel probably you missed this thread.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5102410
May I ask you to read it and to stop stalking me with your nonsense and your attempt to spread false “information” on someone from whom you know very well you are attempting to spread false information.
In my opinion that is a clear violation of the SDMB rules and you are repeating this already for over a year now.
Salaam. A
Oh. Well in that case I’m sure you’ll have a more favourable view of the Guardian when you learn that they believe Shakespeare was a Moslem (the original plays went more like: “…get thee to a terror camp!”, “…cry jihad and let loose the camels of war”)
I used to read The Guardian when I was abroad, but lately I’ve come to realise how unreliable and biased they are – these last days have been ridiculous, and I doubt I’ll ever again buy it.
They don’t. They’re reporting that some academic is making that claim. Besides, Sufis don’t indulge in all that Jihadism.
Ridiculous. The newspaper arts correspondent is reporting on a thesis by a respected academic, not endorsing it.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I sexed it up. Never ruin a good story with facts. Anyway what academics you find respected is sometimes a good measure of who you are. Just the other day I was informed David Irwing was a respected historian, and you might which way the person insisting on that leaned. That The Guardian choose to give space to this story without nary a critical word or second opinion might tell us something about The Guardian. Not that I find this particular story worth more than a small laugh.
“formerly respected” I suppose are the words you’re looking for.
You should work for the Guardian. Or Tony Blair.
Newton was an alchemist, educated people in those times took great interest in all sorts of marvellous metaphysical nonsense. With the Crusades and the reconquest of Spain a whole lot of eastern knowledge came into Europe. The fact that you dismiss the arguments out of hand and then condemn a whole newspaper even for reporting them says more for your lack of knowledge of history and the ebbs and flows of the waters feeding the well-spring of western culture than it does of the Guardian.
There is nothing ipso facto ridiculous in the argument that old Will was a member of a Sufi type order. Secret societies of all sorts were the order of the day. How about debunking the arguments?
The Guardian is a dreadful paper for dreadfull people - see the thread on it’s Clark county debacle for my thoughts on this.
However I won’t have a word said against Charlie Brooker - this is the man who created Nathan Barley after all (I can’t even post the link as the URL is too rude for this forum - but google knows what it’s doing). IMHO one of the funniest (and most accurate) bits of venom on the net.
Well, sure – just as soon as you prove to me that Elizabeth I wasn’t really a bug-eyed space alien from Ursa Minor. How is it the litany goes? Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. All the formerly respected Dr. Lings has are some vague similarities. If that is all that it takes I’ll prove to you that Shakespeare was a devout pagan follower of Odin (PBOH) and Thor (after all Hamlet is based on an old Danish heathen story recorded by Saxo)
Besides everybody knows the real author is Christopher Marlowe …no wait that was last year, this year it’s Bacon – Bacon, an unlikely name for a Moslem wouldn’t you think?
Personally I consider all this speculation about the “real author” a result of certain people who just can’t wrap their brains around how a common man could ever write such perfect plays, when by all rights such majestic feats should be reserved for the upper classes (or failing that, educated and respected academics). I.e. snobbism. Some of the same speculation surround H.C. Anderson; he must be a prince, bastard son of a king. How could a common man ever write such wonderful stories?!
A while back, in the National Review, John Derbyshire bemoaned his inability to have the entire Clinton clan extirpated, the lack of a dictatorial structure and lack of rule of law that would allow Chelsea Clinton to be murdered with her parents. Granted, her father was no longer president at that point, son only the hypothetical murder of an *ex-*president and a senator (and their daughter) is being praised. (most of the column, to be fair, is taking cheap shots at Chelsea, only as an aside is her death aspired to)
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire021501.shtml
When he was questioned about the propriety of such a column, the author explained that in British political culture such things were the height of good natured whimsy, hardly to be noticed at all. So I submit unto you, good Brutus, that your objection should be to the emBritishness of the author and publisher, rather than their leftitude.
So I submit that your beef with
Well, you sure are spouting off quite a lie, aren’t you?
Seems to me he is expressing admiration for the idea of extirpating the Clintons (Chelsea and all), though on balance he agrees that not killling them is the price of civilization, though such noble sacrifice may cost us in the long run.
I no more expect anyone to rush out to murder the Clinton’s to save us all then I expect someone to rush out to assassinate President Bush based on the say so of a “humorist” from the Guardian. I think taking umbrage at such “incitement” is pointless.
And quite frankly, Brutus, if the Guardian columnist had included a sentence that said “just kidding” I very much doubt that would be a great deal less outrage over his call to arms.