« saturday morning radio: a kick in the gut | Main | something else to make you seethe »

sticks and stones

Charlie Brooker channels his inner ten year old and goes on a George Bush name-calling spree. It's almost amusing in its immaturity. Until the end. bq. 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? That is not amusing. I know the Guardian is heavily biased against Bush, but to allow this plea for assasination to be printed is beyond the pale. No further commentary. I'm speechless. Update: DU poster: I like the last line the best. Figures. Update: The Guardian site is down (I think Drudge killed it). Scott has the dead tree edition and took a photo of the offending paragraph.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference sticks and stones:

» Welcome to Our Newest Watch List Member! from Musings from Brian J. Noggle
The Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker, who openly pleads for someone to assassinate George W. Bush.... [Read More]

» Losing their touch? from Maladjusted - Fair and Balanced
The Guardian UK seems to be the Bible for most left leaning UK posters. Why? I have no earthly idea. To be fair, the rag is far too pinko for my tastes, but bad journalism is quite another story. Witness today's story by Charles Brooker. ... [Read More]

» Quick Links from Sortapundit
John Hawkins scores an interview with the slim, attractive Michael Moore of the right wing, Ann Coulter. Michele wonders if the Guardian really did just call for the assassination of the President. Also posted at the Command Post. Kate with a ... [Read More]

» Saturday reading -- mixed bag from Darleen's Place
This windup to the election is promising to be as intense as anything I remember outside of 2000. So I'm going to do a few links on the most egregious things, then a few on non-election stuff for fun and... [Read More]

» POLITICS: A Modest Proposal from Baseball Crank
Memo to the Guardian: please stop printing columns openly calling for the assassination of the United States. I would add some commentary here, but if youre not already disgusted after reading that, nothing I can say will make you feel... [Read More]

» Raving Brit Moonbats from Daily Pundit
Michelle finds the al-Guardian urging the assassination of George W. Bush. The al-Guardian is as big a sinkhole of American hatred as any tame Arabian... [Read More]

» I've Got Words from Cake Eater Chronicles
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, Miche... [Read More]

» Limey Rag Calls For Assasination from RIGHT ON RED >>
The Guardian's Charlie Booker descends into death porn. [Read More]

» Stupid Game from scrawlville.com
This game is the ultimate in stereotyping. They feel if you had to shoot one of two people, your political affiliation can be determined thusly. First targets: Soccer Mom or a hunter. Right because obviously if you live in suburbia... [Read More]

» World Opinion is worth what? from Pajama Pundits
Unbelievable. A Small Victory links to a Guardian UK article titled Dumb Show, where Charlie Brooker writes this: The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save [Read More]

» A terrifying portent from The Shape of Days
I can't even think of an historical precedent for this. I'm no expert in modern history, but I have studied it a bit, and I simply can't recall anything like this ever happening. A columnist in a major newspaper has [Read More]

» The Shot Heard Round the World from Watcher of Weasels
The Guardian already went too far when it launched a letter writing campaign in an attempt to influence our election in Kerry's favor...  now they have published a disgusting piece by Charlie Brooker which ends with a plea for someone... [Read More]

» The Shot Heard Round the World from Watcher of Weasels
The Guardian already went too far when it launched a letter writing campaign in an attempt to influence our election in Kerry's favor...  now they have published a disgusting piece by Charlie Brooker which ends with a plea for someone... [Read More]

» Fucking Moonbats!!!!!!!! from The Queen of All Evil
UK Guardian writer Charlie Brooker goes off the fucking deep end by pleaing for the assassination of OUR PRESIDENT.On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disprov... [Read More]

» The Question Should be: Where is the Secret Service? from Cranial Cavity
I don't read the Guardian newspaper as a rule. On most occasions when I do it's a result of being pointed in that direction. That being the case, I'm sorry Michele directed me to this juvenile screed by Charlie Brooker.On November 2, the entire civi... [Read More]

» Raving Brit Moonbats from Daily Pundit
Michele finds the al-Guardian urging the assassination of George W. Bush. The al-Guardian is as big a sinkhole of American hatred as any tame Arabian... [Read More]

» Raving Brit Moonbats from Daily Pundit
Michele finds the al-Guardian urging the assassination of George W. Bush. The al-Guardian is as big a sinkhole of American hatred as any tame Arabian... [Read More]

» Shining the Light... from Drumwaster's Rants!
Have you noticed the INSANE ramblings from the Left lately? I'm sure it's hard to miss. You've got some upstanding Brit(he's British, so he's obviously smarter than you or I) praying Bush loses and short of that, he gets assassinated.... [Read More]

» The Guardian does *not* want Bush assassinated! from Where Worlds Collide
Judging by the hysterical outrage from the hacks and wingnut drama queens of the American right, they don't seem to... [Read More]

» The Guardian Apologizes from Intellectual Intercourse
On the Guardian's site today instead of the horrid Charlie Booker column that has been made so much of which ended "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?". The final sentence of a column in T... [Read More]

» Aren't these guys supposed to support gun control? from Civitas
Charlie Brooker writes a regular TV column for the Guardian. In the conclusion to his Saturday piece, Mr. Brooker went on bit of a… well, a tangent, to say the least: ‘On November 2, the entire civilised world will be... [Read More]

» The Guardian does *not* want Bush assassinated! from Where Worlds Collide
Judging by the hysterical outrage from the hacks and wingnut drama queens of the American right, they don't seem to... [Read More]

» And here's something that pisses me off from it comes in pints?
Not only are people attacking Republican campaign offices and calling for Bush to be assassinated, now they're trying to run down candidates. If they want to take it to the streets, they should recall that WE are the gun owners.... [Read More]

Comments

Oh my God. Oh my GOD. OH MY GOD!

I think this election is really just showing everyone's true colors. Imagine if a conservative had said that. Most liberals seem completely unhinged. They think GWB is a dangerous man? And they allow themselves to excuse pie-throwing, name-calling, and hope for assassination?

Of course, they would argue that contempt breeds contempt, or violence breeds violence.....Because it's always someone else's fault, isn't it? The mind of liberals seems completely lacking in accountability or consistency.

But remember, if it was up to them free speech would be in their hands only. Watch the movie Equilibrium some time. I think that, as a film, is a worst case scenario for liberals being allowed to take over.

You know that birth-control-promotion commercial, the one where the hapless dad watches his kid pitch the bitch of the century? (It's been passing around my place of work via email.) Anyway, when I read things like this GroaningWad er, outburst, I envision a screechy toddler throwing itself on the floor kicking its heels and banging its fists.

The Left is not about liberty. Never has been.

Maybe this is one of the reasons they are so enamored of the jihadists. The Left feels disagreement is worthy of death.

Well said Darleen. But I think we must define levels of the left. I think you've got at least five levels of liberal starting somewhere around Zell and ending somewhere around Chomsky. Same way on the right. You start somewhere around Bush and you end somewhere around Buchanan.

Sadly, most of the voices on the internet are either Buchananites or Chomskyites. This isn't representative of America though. In fact, I think you can qualify the statement fairly easily by saying that the louder and harsher someone rails about on the internet, the harder towards the poles they tend to be galvanized.

Anyway, just my loud and harsh take on things.

Jeez, Gabe! You don't have to YELL!

I kid you.

Very very good points. I think the toddler pitching a fit is my favorite description of current liberal rhetoric.

what is it with the liberal bashing? there are good and bad liberals just like there are good and bad conservatives and most of the population fall somewhere in between.

stop thinking of one side as the enemy and start thinking for yourselves - you are showing the same kind of prejudice that inspires racism, terrorism, and all kinds of schisms and -isms.

Don't let other peoples' hate inflame yours. Think things through and leave the pathetic ones, like the guy in the article, to their own rantings to fall on deaf ears - which is surely the most quick and painful way to silence someone like him.

Isn't this the same dick who said something similar a few years ago in The New Statesmen? I'm not a subscriber to eitehr rag (as I'm in the States), but I do remember a controversy about somebody printing an assassination wish against President Bush a few years ago in the UK "liberal" press. Wouldn't shock me if it's the same guy.

My anti-Bush feelings are well known, but Jesus wept. Brooker is a fuggen moron, end of story. I usually have a lot of respect for the Guardian UK, but after this... I don't know.

Umm, Someone,

BROOKER WANTS TO SEE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASSASSINATED!

Don't lecture us about hate.

Gabe

Classical liberals are not leftists. My hope is that a good hard public spanking of the Democratic Party this election just might be the impetus for them to shed their anti-liberty members and re-embrace the tenets of liberalism. The Left is anti-American and has no place of political legitimacy in this country. Let them whine from the hinterlands of the American Communist party.

Good ideas come through healthy competition. Give me a loyal, pro-American, anti-left alternative to the Republican party -- cuz I ain't seeing one now.

someone

The Left is my enemy, because the values I hold most dear -- liberty, freedom of speech, freedom to rise or fall at my own hands -- is anathema to them.

The problem is that people like this Brooker think that because Ann Coulter says stupid things we need to "impeach or assassinate" President Clinton, it's ok for them to do it too. No, it's not! I hate this whole childish business of pointing at the other side and excusing your failings because "at least it's not as bad as those people." It's worse than dealing with my kids. He started it! She's a poopy head!

Grow the hell up!

This is not the slighest bit surprising. Alas, considering what the Guardian has got up this is not shocking.

The left is not liberal. They have nothing to offer but hate.

Darleen - "The Left feels disagreement is worthy of death." "because the values I hold most dear...freedom to rise or fall at my own hands" - sounds like you might lean a bit to the left yourtself.

Big Brother - if you want to do something with your hate rather than just TYPE IN ALL CAPS AND NOT DEBATE THE POINTS GIVEN then i you /do/ need a lecture on hate and how to make use of it and do something useful with it rather than let it eat you up.

someone

The Left is anti-liberal, so no, I don't lean that way at all.

BTW, someone, this article is pretty clear The left thinks legally, the right thinks morally
To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself.
Big Brother - if you want to do something with your hate rather than just TYPE IN ALL CAPS AND NOT DEBATE THE POINTS GIVEN then i you /do/ need a lecture on hate and how to make use of it and do something useful with it rather than let it eat you up.

(rolling eyes) My... "hate."

Jeebus H. Cthulhu, you blowhard, we're discussing someone who wants the president to die, and you bitch about my hate.

I typed that in all caps because you don't seem to understand the point. And your latest post shows you still don't. Perhaps I should use smaller words.

Tell you what... why don't you e-mail Brooker with the same condescending tone you've shown here and see where it gets you. Tell HIM he shouldn't give in to his "hate." Because he's the one who wants to see someone he doesn't like dead.

Sick. Depraved. Twisted.

"The entire civilized world"??

Then I guess I don't belong to the entire civilized world.

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

Darleen - from the quotes, it sounds to me like you belive the left would be willing to die for something they believe in and you would as well. That was all.

That is an interesting article you directed me too. My question to you, and I ask out of sincerity (or ignorance, if you will) - not to "push buttons" is: How is morality defined? Where does it come from (if anything)? Can morals change over time? Who decides the morals and how? THe artivle makes it sound as though, at least to me, you have to believe in god to have the basis of moral law - true?

Big Brother - The reason I brought it up here was to have a conversation about the article. I am in complete agreement with you - the author of that article if FULL (woohoo! caps!) of hate and is a big meanie to the nth degree. My point to you was to use some of the passion that his hate incited inside of you in a more useful way. But if you feel the need to just blow it all on me, I am saddened, but this /is/ a free country and all. ;)

someone,

1) Don't tell me what I feel ("if you want to do something with your hate rather than just TYPE IN ALL CAPS AND NOT DEBATE THE POINTS GIVEN then i you /do/ need a lecture on hate and how to make use of it").

2) Don't tell me what to do with my feelings ("and do something useful with it rather than let it eat you up..").

3) Don't play the martyr ("But if you feel the need to just blow it all on me, I am saddened, but this /is/ a free country and all.").

I don't need a lecture about hate from you, despite what you think. Got it, Yoda?

Oh, yay. Another thread derailment.

Geez...how did that sentence pass his editor? Is the extremism and hate really so bad that he honestly wishes somebody would assinate the POTUS? :shakes my head in disbelief:

Oh, yay. Another thread derailment.

My prediction is that, over the next ten days, it will be impossible for a comment thread that doesn't attack Bush to remain on subject.

Even longer if the election ends up in the courts again.

it isn't a thread derailment. the original article was about hate and stupidity. i felt we were doing rather well, but, fair enough all, this was your place way before i got here. since there doesn't seem to be call for debate, i will look elsewhere to spend my time. it is a pity, though, i was hoping to learn more about your points of view.

I scraped together some contact info if anyone wants to let the Guardian know what idiots they are for publishing such drivel.

The European Left has been running most of Europe since WWII. Europeans have no spine left. They trash Bush because when they see him stand up to the terrorists, they sense their own impotence. That's why they hate him. In 75 years, Europe will be Muslim. God help them, I don't think we should any longer.

Hmmm... seems the Guardian site is down...

Wonder if this little column will go down the memory hole.

Hope someone cached it somewheres (damn, I didn't).

BTW someone, if you're still around... WE all determine morality and yes, some the table settings can change from time to time. Judeo-Christian tenets give a legup, but even atheists can be moral people, as long as they accept human beings as ends in themselves, not means. Ayn Rand stated it along the means of developing a morality of man qua man.

The Left and many of those that flirt with it eschew the debate and questions surrounding morality. This is easily seen as any criticism of moral issues different than the Left's position (say, abortion) is slammed with charges that the criticizer is looking to criminalize the behavior rather just pointing out the immorality of the behavior.

This makes you wonder how the Guardian won this award for "trailblazing" that was just announced on Saturday.

Hope someone cached it somewheres (damn, I didn't).

I have a photo here (and I have the dead tree original in hand), along with contact info for the author and his editor:

Guardian: "We Need" Bush Murdered

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2004/10/emguardianem_we.html

kjo,

You shouldn't help us any more, generous though it has been of you to do it for the last sixty years.

If a country hasn't the moral corage to protect itself it should fall.

Keep in mind that the Guardian considers a Hamas leader as an equal to POTUS. This is the mindset we are dealing with. The same mindset apologised for Hitler, Stalin, and probably felt sorry for Castro when he fell the other day. I consider the source, and ignore it, but I fail to understand why so many Brits buy the thing.

The article is back up as of a few minutes ago. Or at least I got through and read it. It is indeed a screedy bile-filed outpouring of pure hatred. Someone isn't getting the point.

on topic,

They are pussies for running it and taking it down.

If you believe it, back it up.

If you blow with the wind, take it down.

If you're ashamed of what you ran, apologize.

Taking it down quietly is gutless.

Do they really think we have not had the POTUS under guard? Do they realy think since we lost two Kennedy's and Reagan was shot that we are so stupid? The President has been on a list since before he came in office.

I agree it is not amusing but the idiots that said it will be sorry, they may not think so because of where they are but fools are fools.

I think that, by US law, this idiot just bought himself a lifetime ban from ever visiting the US.
Well, at least we can hope.

Thanks for those links, Watcher! I sent Mr. Brooker the following e-mail, with a cc: to the Grauniad's letters:

Mr. Brooker,

Your latest column in the Guardian advocating the assassination of President Bush was perhaps the single most despicable thing I've read during this campaign. That takes a lot of doing, considering the depths to which the unhinged Democrats have sunk this year. Cheers, bloke! You've officially hit the bottom.

I'm sure that the Secret Service will have been notified of your writings. Don't ever come to America, sir. We don't welcome your kind here.

[My signature block]

In a related matter of how the Guardian keeps on rolling, it is now asking was Shakespeare a Muslim?
Islam week at the Globe Theatre will link Shakespeare with a mystic Muslim sect.

The suicide-wish of these idiots is breathtaking.

Darleen - so because you support freedom of speech, you want to see Mr Brooker's column banned?

Gotta love PC logic...

Odd, I went through the comments section and didn't see where Darleen said anything like that.

I am sure that some bunch of leftie idiots are going to invite the man to the US to have him speak. I doubt that he will be prevented from entering either...alas.

you folk are aware that Mr brooker is a professional comedian ? And that his column is a sarcastic TV review column in a weekend supplment?

The article was satirical. Actually at the time I thought it was in bad taste but it was never meant to be taken seriously.

Of course -

1. It was for an English audience
2. In an English paper

Frankly, unlike the Ohio debacle, it has nothing to do with Americans.

It may also come as a surprise to some Americans, but the UK is an independent nation where freedom of speech exists in practice rather than principle, so while Brooker's comments did warrant an apology, I am still glad that I live in a nation where there is sufficient plularity for someone to make such a stupid comment.