« Logic deficit | Main | Who is to blame? »

Having a ball

I know that there are people out there who hate President Bush with every molecule of every fiber of their being. (Thousands of people drove that point home this past winter by taking to the streets denouncing him and supporting one of the most murderous dictators of the past fifty years.) I've learned to find their shrill rants amusing, despite their dead seriousness. And for a fine example of shill ranting, check out this lead paragraph by Matt Taibbi of the New York Press:

George Bush should be hung up by his balls. No kidding. He should be grabbed from behind, restrained, forcibly stripped below the waist, and a big hook should be pushed through his scrotum. Then the rope attached to the hook should be dragged through a pulley at the top of a flagpole, and the president should be hoisted up and left to swing in the breeze, 60 painful feet above the ground.
Ye gods. So what did the president do to earn Taibbi's wrath? He went to Africa and made a speech condemning slavery. (Gasp!) And he also changed the way Head Start and Section 8 programs are funded. (The nerve!) Mind you, funding levels haven't been reduced, they're just now being given out as block grants to the states. Taibbi describes this as "whipping out the rusty garden tools and cutting the very balls out of the black community." (Note the casual racism in implying that all blacks, and no whites, are on welfare. Apparently, he doesn't much care about the poor white men in testicular danger. And never mind the women.)

So as I said, it's amusing. What other reaction can you have? People like Taibbi aren't going to listen to reason, for their Bush-hatred is like a religion. And you can't argue with religious fanatics. But if you try (and you're a man), remember to wear a protective cup.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (5)

I don't recall anyone demonstrating in support of Saddam. A little disengenuous, don't you think? Does opposition to a war equal support for a dictator? Why do you support the repression of the Chinese people?

Your recollection is hazy. Leaving Saddam alone was one of the main demands of many of the marchers. (No? Then what would have happened if they got their way?) If there were any demands for Saddam to step down and stop butchering his people (you know, instead of demands to "try Bush for war crimes"), then I didn't see them.

Next time you see the streets filled with people demanding that the Chinese Communists remain in power, let me know, and I'll be happy to call them disgusting idiots, too.


Amitava, since you memory seems to be a little hazy, let me help you remember. There is this organization called International ANSWER. Does that name ring a bell? They were the main organizers of the anti-war movement. They supported Saddam Hussein as well as all of the other lovable anti-American dictators around the world. Any you don’t have to take my word for it. As Casey Stengal liked to say, "You can look it

Partha Mazumdar:

"Leaving Saddam alone" *wasn't* one of the many demands of the vast majority of the protesters. Sorry, it just wasn't.

The protesters were advocating for an aggressive inspection regime, right? Inspections backed with the threats of the United States military.

And, what would have happened if these protesters would have gotten their way? You posed it and it's a fair question. Would the United States be less safe?

And, this retrospective 'we went in to liberate the Iraqi people' just doesn't wash. That dog don't hunt. At the time, we were told that we were going in because it was part of the war on terrorism. Now that that has proved to be bunk, other reasons are being found.


Damn it, Partha. Are you going to be deliberately obtuse? Don't tell me you don't know who International ANSWER is. Don't tell me you don't know that they led the anti-war movement. In case you are now claiming you have amnesia (it seems to be going around with people named Mazumdar), here is their website. Just because you wanted the anti-war crowd to be a group of Quakers does not make it so.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on July 20, 2003 6:34 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Logic deficit.

The next post in this blog is Who is to blame?.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.31