As we all know, I'm a little on the wordy side. For whatever reason,
simplicity, despite being the standard I aspire to, eludes me most
days. I write sentence after sentence after sentence, all in a vain
attempt to explain myself better. Today, Michele, God Love Her, is speechless over this article, but more specifically, this paragraph:
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?Well, unlike Michele, I've got words. Lots of words. Some of them vile, too. I agree with her when she says the entire tone of the article is somewhat juvenile, but that last sentence is such a heart-stopper, it completely negates the tone Booker tried to achieve with the rest of his commentary. While I'm sure Booker would claim that he never meant to imply that he wanted Bush assassinated in reality, that it was just a joke, given The Guardian's outright moonbattery during this election year, well...it sure as hell doesn't look good, does it? Particularly right after he got done talking about the election. You know, that veritable thump-thump of Democracy: our right to vote. If you seriously believe Booker, well, if Democracy doesn't provide what he believes is the "correct" outcome to this election, well, it's all right to off the President of the United States. That will provide the correct outcome. Despite the fact that given the rules of Presidential succession, Dick Cheney would then be in charge. If Booker really wanted a Democrat in office and was willing to rouse the world wide chorus of nutjobs with scoped rifles, well, then he'd have to instruct the assassins to pick off not only Bush, but Cheney, as well as Hastert, then the President of the Senate to get to someone he actually thought would be an appropriate choice. Let's not forget, as well, that this anonymous person would also have to shoot Colin Powell, you know, just to make sure he didn't pull an Alexander Haig. But Booker didn't say any of that: he implies that shooting Bush would be enough to get America on the right track. Tighten up the tinfoil on your noggin' buddy. All that space radiation is getting to you. Where the fuck does The Guardian get off? What is it with their particular brand of William Randolph Hearst-in-reverse journalism? To put it quite bluntly: Who the fuck do these people think they are? Do they honestly believe they're accurately representing mainstream views? Where is the editorial control? Who is the editor who guided Booker, and why in God's name did they think that this was an "ok" sentence to keep in an editorial particularly after the reaming they've received over their Operation Clark County fiasco? Have they absolutely no clue about what is actually going on or are they so blinded by their partisanship that they simply cannot distinguish right from wrong? Naive questions, I'm sure some of you will say, but I can't help but asking them. Presumably they have an editorial board for just such a reason---where the hell are they? Do they not realize this was so far out of bounds that there's no possibility of a judge overturning the call? I wonder how they'd feel if, during the elections in the UK next year, some American editorial writer called for the offing of Tony Blair should Labour should win reelection? What would they say to some American writer asking "Where's Guy Fawkes when you need him to blow up Parliament? Maybe he'd be successful this time around? What about that hatchet man who lopped off Charles I's head? Wouldn't he be a handy guy to have around right now?" Sounds a little bit different, doesn't it, when it's your country where someone---a foreigner---wants to foment rebellion?
While I'm not really big on activism, I think The Guardian should know how we Americans feel about this sort of thing. After all, they apparently do
care enough about America to attempt to manipulate our elections with
their Operation Clark County, that they should care when some of us are
displeased with what they've published.
Here's the information for The Guardian's reader representative, Ian Mayes.
As I believe this to be a huge editorial mistake, the reader
representative, who is supposed to make sure they "get things right"
should be made aware of how we feel. This is why I'm sending you to the
ombudsman for the paper, and not the Letters section. I want someone
with the power to make things right. Letters to the Editor are easily
dismissed, particularly when the tone they employ isn't exactly productive.
In other words, decrying a particular point of view because that
particular country has an established track record for having poor oral
hygiene standards isn't intelligent nor is it bound to change someone's
mind. However, decrying an editorial published by a mainstream news
organization that calls for the assassination of the President of the
United States and asking why no one on the editorial board thought this
was perhaps a bad idea---in a polite and respectful tone---is bound to change someone's mind. Get the gist, kids? I don't want anyone sending an email to The Guardian
calling them "Limey Assholes." Whatever rhetoric they employ to try and
get their misguided points across, well, they don't call Americans
"unedmucated dickwads who can't pull their heads from their arses."
Language matters.