The Guardian At It Again
 

This makes me angry, real angry.

First we have the letter writing campaign to "Undecided" voters - which I will withhold opinion on.

Then, after the heated responses that the Guardian recieved, they "raised the white flag" LINK

Now, the Guardian tries a new tactic regarding our President:

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?

I'm sorry, this is just wrong, on many levels.

I don't care if you love Bush, hate Bush or whatever, this goes beyond appropriate. How did this article get approved for submission?

Can anyone defend an article like this or do you feel that it is inappropriate like I do?

Note: I do believe that an article writen like this, here in the states, would be illegal. Am I correct?



EDIT: The link went down so I added the text of the article down below.

The article would be perfectly legal in the US because it never makes any threats against the President, it only makes an oblique reference to assassins of yesteryear.

The article itself is a humor piece by a columnist and I'm not sure if it actually made the print edition of the Guardian. Maybe this is the British version of Ann Coulter (meaning outrageous "humor",not politics obviously) ?

Now there is one very sore loser. They think that Bush will win and so are advocating his assassination. I guess they are so mad that Kerry is going to lose that they would rather have Cheney as president.

I guess I can defend their right to wish the death of our president but I agree it is certainly inappropriate. And also rather childish and kind of evil.

Im not sure that the Ann Coulter comparison fits, she isnt funny at all.

And, I think a lot of American people dont appreciate the degree of hostility there is against Bush outside of the US. I cant speak with intimate experience of any other nation, but in the UK, Bush is generally reviled and mocked, he is genuinely hated. I cant tell you if it is a negative media portrayal or something else... but regardless of the facts or real story - most people I know consider that Bush won the last election by fraudelent means, most people believe he cannot read, and that he is a crook and a warmonger.

I am not trying to flame anyone, or say thats how I feel... but that is the percpection here in the UK of Bush, he is hated. I dont know how close it is running in the US, but in the rest of the world a Bush victory will be met with utter disbelief.

I didn't see any publications asking for the assasination of Blair, Thatcher, etc.

Imagine the outrage on that side of the pond if one of our newspapers said something like this.

I may or may not like British leaders (past or present), but I would never wish their assasination.

Example: Look what Chamberlain did. Imagine if he had been offed before he appeased? Imagine if a stronger leader took his place? Our history would be vastly different. However, I don't see anything comparable to wishing for his death (yes, I realize this is in the past).

The outrage over there would probably equal what is being mustered up over here in response to the article. I'm sure that the blogs are already picking up on this. Where did you find the story (I'm assuming that you weren't independently browsing the Guardian)?

It was a tasteless line but it probably doesn't qualify as "international incident" material.

I think its inappropriate, even if it was written outside the United States. Its on a level with Ann Coulter's ridiculous line: "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

I did a search on the author and it looks like he's just a TV critic for the paper's website. While not an excuse, it probably explains how that sentence got through, since he's not under strict editorial control. I don't know what he's doing writing about American politics, but my guess is that he won't be anymore.

Regardless of who you are or what party you belong to, that's disgusting.

This is the type of thing that is only a big deal because people make it so. That is to say, if you ignore it, it will go away with no one worse for the wear.

Chamberlain was dying...

And it was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany, without any attack on British interests - a war that Hitler did not want. Chamberlain understood how terrible war would be with Germany, so sought to avoid it as long as it was possible. when he felt the avoidance was not possible, he declared war on Germany.

So, in the specific example you use, iM not sure that your logic adds up.

And if that article was written by an American about Blair, I can promise you I wouldnt be offended.

I mean, also, one must think of historical context. The CIA - for example - tried to assinate Castro and supported the assination of Allende, which is clearly a lot more serious than some journalist making what some consider an off colour joke about George Bush.

The comparison between this article and Coulter still doesnt fit. Whether or not you think it is in bad taste, the Guardian writer is attempting to be funny, it is nota serious call for Bush to be killed. Coulter genuinely wanted Islamic leaders to be murdered, which is in line with previous American foriegn policy.

cthulu23 - It was red-lettered on Drudge

filtherton - Based on past actions of the Guardian (more then the letter writing thing), coupled with this comment, it is hard to ignore. Disagree with Bush. Dislike Bush. Do whatever. However, he is still the President of the United States. That position, regardless of the guy who holds it, demands respect. I didn't like Clinton, but I still respected him as my President (I even served under him without complaint).

Strange - It was a bad analogy. My point being the aggregate outrage on your side if one of our papers printed something like this. Maybe this one is better: Say a reporter adds <insert British Politish or Royal> should be chased down by the media like Diana was. Imagine how "most" people would respond in your area.

Also, the CIA thing is kind of out of context. I see your point, but I don't see it as comparable. Especially since our two countries are very close allies and depend heavily on each other.

In regards to Coulter (who I don't like, but wouldn't kick out of bed if she farted), she pretty much got canned for that comment and lost the respect of many of her "fans". There was a lot of outrage based on that stupid comment. I want to see the same outrage (from both sides of the pond and political spectrum) over this jerk's comment.

My point is that you are helping to spread the message of this article by taking the time to complain about in a public forum.

I hope this gets press everywhere, I want it on every major station, every newspaper, and every radio station.

#1 It will help Bush. Americans don't care for outsiders lamenting that no one is around to assassinate our president.

#2 It illistrates the level of hate and idiocy the vocal left has reached.

Here's my recently sent letter to the editor:
Your antiquated little rag recently published this gem from one Charlie Booger, Bugger, or Brooker, who was lamenting the possibility of George Bush’s reelection:

“John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?” (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/c...333748,00.html)

Little Charlie’s mother must’ve been a Glasgow heroin whore suffering from syphilis when he was born, because she has no doubt passed her madness on to him. Insolent cretin. Where is Thomas Hamilton when he’s really needed?

The link is not working for me now.

However, that single quote really does pale next to Ann Coulter.

1) I don't offend easy.
2) I also don't like Bush.

Number 1 is the main reason I don't give a rat's ass about this (though I have to admit the lack of respect for our previous assassinated presidents is more annoying to me than the lack of respect for Bush). You people should lighten up in the face of satire.

well, that'll teach 'em!

For some strange reason, The Guardian's website isn't coming up - gee, I wonder why???

Anyway, I kept the text of the article, here it is:

I see no reason why an English newspaper should respect the office of President of the United States. While I dont think the majority of English people want Bush to be killed, he is expressing the strong dislike that the majority of Europeans feel about Bush. Really, at worst, it was just an off colour jokes that didnt work.

As for the Diana thing, I dare say some people would be upset about such a comment, and if it was done at the time of her death a lot of people would... but I wouldnt care that much.

This does make me remember the case of Louise Woodward though - she was an English nanny who worked in America and was found guilty of manslaughter of the baby in her care (she claimed she was innocent - but she would, wouldnt she? I dont know much of the real facts of the case to tell if she was likely really guilty or not) - but the popular press in the UK reacted terribly to it.... the tabloids were calling for a boycot of American products, the Mirror was basically hinting at support for tactical nuclear strikes against Washington, letters were published (real or not I dont know) from American ex pats renouncing their American citizenship in disgust of the verdict....

The whole English media spread the idea that this girl was the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice, while people had no real idea about the facts of the case,k this became the accepted truth and there was a huge hostility to America in popular opinion for a brief time... obviously there was some reaction to the case in America too, because the judge gave her a nothing sentence (ie she only had to serve the time she had already done up to the court case, and she was released)... but I remember huge online petitions, media frenzy... all in support of someone who had been found guilty, in what as far as I can tell must have been a fair trial, of killing a baby.

All of which goes to show I suppose, that patriosm can be a funny thing,

That cracked me up. John Kerry really does look and sound a bit like a haunted tree, now that I think about it.

When a newspaper posts and article wanting the president dead, it is no longer satire.

Its something I would expect from a radical Islamist, not the United Kingdom.

Its on the same level.

By that logic, I can start attributing the statements of any international right-winger to the American right. I'll take your wistful assassination statement and raise you 10 "jews run the world."

edit:

Here's a little aside that you dropped in reference to an Ann Coulter statement in this thread:

How much attention are we supposed to focus on a foreign columnist again? Don't we have better things to worry about?

Fun fact -Here's the ACTUAL John Kerry quote that seems to be taken out-of-context quite a bit around here:

lol

No, "we should invade America, kill their leaders, and convert them to Islam" would be something to expect from a radical Islamist. The article above was a morbid joke that I would expect from from somebody who thinks the Bush administration is dangerous to the international community. It's not anywhere near on the same level.

what is funniest about this is seeing the conservatives here become terribly sanctimonious about this guardian article, demanding "respect for the office of the president" after the eight years of continuous conservative slander of clinton...accusing him of anything and everything...i guess respect for the office of the president is only something they call for when a republican is in office.

funny stuff.

the most telling effect of this article and those of its ilk is the remarkable extent of double standards. while recalling past posts filled with indignation at this quote or that in the past... i can't help but grin at some of the comments on this thread.

Er....roach

I can only speak for myself, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I thought I was pretty clear on this.

This is a serious flaw on both sides. Lack of respect is a big problem in this country, on many different levels.

irateplatypus -

Could you be more specific? Have I exhibited double-standards here in any of my posts? I thought I was fairly consistent. Then again, you may not be referring to me. You were being vague (on purpose I assume) so I am not sure what you are referring to (I have an idea, though)

i wasnt reaacting to your post in particular, kma....the thread as it evolved acquired a significant haurmph harumph i am outraged flavor
and i find that funny.

.

o.k., I see your point.

The whole moral equivalency game is annoying, I will agree with that.

I just think, if one is capable of pulling current political fervor out, most people should be upset about this comment. The article could have held on its on without the last sentence, why add something stupid like that?

Personally, I thought the article was a wonderful piece of satire and nothing more. It just accentuates and has a giggle at all the little jokes that people make about Bush and Kerry and is actually quite an entertaining read. I think it's importance as a political statement is being drastically overplayed, and that a lot of people need to get over themselves just a liiiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit.

Oh yea that’s wonderful satire. I bet Jonathan Swift wishes his satire was of such heights.

Satire requires some wit. This was just left wing mewling.

No one ever asked for or wished for Clinton's assasination. It just isn't appropriate. I'm not voting for Bush, but I respect him as our President. If re-elected I will support him as an american. The lack of respect from the world, and both sides, democrat and republican is sickening. I use to want to get involved in Politics with honest intentions but i realize that would be a mistake, so I guess I'll let the dirty get their hands dirtier and continue to bring our country in a downward direction.

Oh, I seem to remember a couple assassination attempts, most notably when some crazy tried to crash a Cessna into the White House.

whocarz -

I think he is referring to a published article asking/wishing for Clinton's assasination. In other words, similar to the one referenced in this thread.

You are always going to have crazies plotting to overthrow the government, thinking about killing the president, taking potshots at the White House (remember that one?), etc. This is the first time, that I can think of, where a mainstream journalist from another country prints nonsense like this.

I don't recall such an article but I doubt we had republicans calling it 'wonderful satire' at the time it was written.

Some here may not understand it, but not everyone feels that making a mocking, tasteless reference to the death of an American (or any other country's) leader is all that shocking or outrageous regardless of what ideological camp it emanates from. Humor and satire have gotten pretty raw lately.

Edit: the above statement does not appy to groups with a known propensity for any sort of political violence.

Then all I can do is apologise for my opinion, and wonder to what end you think sarcasm will carry you. How anyone can take this harmless little article quite so seriously, frankly, confuses me.

I absolutely agree.

I find it amazing, the most vocal supporters of regime change in foreign climes...... are the self same people complaining about foreigners calling for regime change in their country.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Base irony, but... hay ho.

Oh, and further up, someone was whittering about no calls for Reagan/Thatcher/Clinton/etc/etc/etc... to be assassinated. I say: You're not looking hard enough. Every limit pushing comedian since time immemorial has called for their/world political leaders to be assassinated.

Reagan/Bush/Thatcher? I refer the honorable readers to the works of a certain Texan by the name of William Hicks.

Aborted: Fundamentalism. Xenophobia. Zero sense of humour. Insane playground gang vs gang mentality. There are the reasons people are taking this seriously. The close minded cannot abide criticism, after all, they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

If this came from a totalitarian nation like the ones the US targets then I would understand.

It came from the UK.

Big fucking difference buddy.

Hmmm, sinking to their level proves nothing. I think a polite argument would work a lot better.

I tend to agree.

Letters like this are just held up while they trumpet, "You see???"

Yep, which is why I have mixed emotions. Sure I can't grasp why the left is so hate filled and intolerant, but I'm glad when they shed the cloak and prove it with such pieces. I want more like this so everyone can 'see' :D

In contrast to the tolerance and understanding that you usually exhibit for the other side?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...334135,00.html

here is an article from the guardian written by the independent ombudman about the reactions to the letter-writing campaign of last week.
the selections that were published last week under the title "dear limey assholes" were illuminating, like looking down some discursive sewer pipe.

the guardian's response is interesting.

yes, it is quite a band of enlightened fellow travellers bush has assembled.
quite a fine time to dip into the sewer that is american politics, this as well.
of course, the problem is with the guardian because they gave it a try.

the horror, trying to "influence an election" by pointing out that people outside the states have a stake in how this election turns out as well, that bush is and will continue to be a disaster in terms of relations with the wider world.

how dare they point this out?
the problem must be with the guardian.

here too.
the article above, quoted out of context btw, is obvious satirical--the conservatives here take it seriously.
"how could they call for the assassination of the president?"
well they arent.

you would have to be stupid to think otherwise.
the horror is not being expressed by stupid people here, however:
it is being expressed because, and only because, the source newspaper is the guardian.

the guardian is a better newspaper than any in the states. it is a source of information not skewed to the right, that expresses a viewpoint the bush crowd would prefer did not exist. they tried an experiment with clark county that did not turn out as they imagined (read the above)

so now you get the next step in the typical american right pattern of smearing the messenger--the guardian is calling for the assasination of the president.

it is absurd.

Because it is skewed to the left, which makes it a thousand times more appropriate. :rolleyes:

do you actually read the guardian?
the quality of the coverage is not a function of the politics of the editorial staff--it has more to do with having less space devoted to adverts, more in depth articles, more context provided.
compare any given page of the print version of the guardian with one of the new york times---just look at it---with half to three quarters of every interior page devoted to what is going on at saks fifth avenue, the times does not have room to provide anything approaching adequate coverage of the issues it undertakes. this on an everyday basis--longer feature stories aside. and the ny times, for better or worse, is one of the best papers produced in the states. and this is not a function of the politics of the editorial staff.

there are decent right-leaning papers--le figaro is one. for the same reason--more space for writing, less for adverts.

a rag like the washington times is as it is because they do not make a clear seperation between how the news articles are written and the politics of the editorial staff. and the adverts.

but this is beside the point: the only reason the Outrage that litters this thread is there, the only reason teh thread itself is there, is because this satirical piece turned up in the guardian, which is the rights target of choice for the moment. the way the right attacks the guardian now only works if you do not read the paper.

In case anyone didn't notice, the Guardian put up the following apology at the link given in the original post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/t...335307,00.html

I think he did the right thing in apologizing and that should settle this issue in the minds of most reasonable people.

................

Wow, I'm not a regular reader and even I caught that. I must be some kind of friggin genius...

hahaha that's hilarious.

Although, Cheney as president would be scary.. no thanks! Who's in line after Cheney?

Doesn't this suggest the level to which we think Bush is a bad idea*? Smoke, see? Probably a fire somewhere.


* And before anyone retorts with "Look at Blair" we know he's a mutant, we're very, very sorry and will be voting him out soon.

Right-wing talk show hosts said the same kind of thing about Clinton when he was president. That illustrates the level of hate and idiocy the extreme right has reached. This kind of thing should be condemned equally by both sides, no matter who it's targeted at.

Who? Please let me know when you find out. Did they enjoy the secret service cavity search?

Tsk tsk. Why can't we all just get along? :)

Seriously though... cursing is not a good idea.


Mr Mephisto

Ustwo: Is it me, or were you swaggering - such a distinguished characteristic for a statesman - as you penned the last line?

It. Is. A. Humour. Piece.

OBVIOUSLY.

What beef do right wingers have with limit pushing comedy? Freedom of speech a little too free when the friendly fire's directed your way?

Is it the fact that it came from the UK, which is the 'traditional, closest and most natural ally' (sic) to your hegemony, the only government (note, not populace) to substantially back the Iraqi step along the way to a New American Century that sticks in one's craw a little?

Here's my opinion.

I enjoyed reading the article and shared many of it's sentiments. I think the finale was a bit extreme. I think there should be a differentiation between politics and public. I suspect that, like me, there is a great deal of animosity towards US president and politics. It is not targeted towards Americans in general.

There is the theory that people put politicians into place and keep them there, but in this case I don't really think that's true. The rest of the world knows how Bush and his pack lied and cheated their way into power. Certainly my many American friends are not being represented and could hardly be held accountable.

Despite their personal feelings on the subject, they may on some completely illogical level defend him or respect him due to this bizarre (and powerful) concept of loyalty/patriotism. People wierdly reserve the right to insult a family member blatently at fault, and are then offended if others (non-family members) observe and vocalise the exact same feelings.

I would suggest that the idea of free speech be exported along with McDees and Microsoft. The fact that the UK is allies of the US is exactly the reason that its voice be listened to, and the rest of Europe for that matter. There are common global interests and the rest of the world has (a sometimes unwelcome) stake in who the next US president is.

i think the problem the right has with comedy is that they feel it is a poor representative of reality. as in, it's not a satirical commentary on the reality of the situation... it's just sniping at imagined positions and half-truths. If the joke doesn't have a foundation in reality it often crosses the line from satire/comedy to mean-spirited lies. sometimes you get the "lol, well... as much as it sucks, i really got zinged there" sort of reponse, but most of the time its more of a...

::looks around:: "was that supposed to be directed at me? cause, if it was... it really wasn't very clever"

also, we conservatives bear more comedic jabs than anyone else. it's just the nature of the business. the liberal call for change will always be more entertaining than the conservative trust in what got us to where we are.

this kind of story operates with a set of assumptions about the short attention span particular to a broadcast media-dominated environment--it too has the earmarks of a karl rove special, the ridiculous distortion floated in the press for a few days, that does its damage because it is promkinent, and that is denied later or qualified later--the denial or qualification being printed on page 8 or mentioned in passing on tv.

the quote that began this thread was a problem because it was presented out of context.
it surfaced in the context of american right anger at the guardian's letter writing campaign.
it assumed that the people who were harumphing their way into a righteous lather did not and would not read the actual article, so the right press was free to make of this isolated quote what they wanted. and you see in this thread how accurate these assumptions were about the audience for such claims.

the problem here is not about humor. it is not about whether conservatives feel beleagured because their positions are such obvious targets for ridicule. it as more about how the right press operates. and now that the guardian issued a response that simply pointed out that the line was perhaps tasteless but was at the end of a humorous piece published in a humor column, you would expect this whole thing to no longer occupy much space in either here or in the right media environment.

because the next step would be to turn the questions back around on the right press itself. how is it possible that the framing gestures that situated the lines quoted at the outset of this thread could have been missed? do conservative pundits not read? well they obviously have to read otherwise they would not have found the quote. how could they have misread it so thoroughly then? what is the motivation behind this misreading--what function would it serve? you cant assume stupidity to explain this--you have to think about why this story was floated as it was...

unless the karl roves of the world are right about the tiny attention span of the american public insofar as that public gets its information from telvision, say, or finds itself innundated with information, cannot recall things, just rides along the crest of the information wave remembering what they are told, forgetting all else....

roach -

I think you are over-generalizing here. It is not a right/left issue with people like me.

Let's flip the people involved here: Imagine Clinton as President and a right-wing rag involved.

You should know me well enough by now to know that I would say something like: I don't care for Clinton's politics, but he is still my president. Whether I like the guy or not, this comment is out of line.

There are some of us out there that still believe in decorum and principle and can look past our own political agenda to see that. Am I biased? Of course. But I can guarantee that if Kerry were to win, I would support him with the respect that the Office of the Presidency deserves.

And I would never, never support a comment like this about the President of the United States, regardless of whether I voted for him or not.

kma--i seem to be developing quite a skill in making posts here that you take as personal when there was nothing personal involved--my apologies--i need to perhaps work on this a bit--what i was reacting to was the story itself, how it was framed, the reactions here and the guardian's apology.
it fits neatly into the pattern outlined above....

had i more time at the moment, i woudl have undertaken the middle step, which would be to link the post that started this thread to a bigger media-specific squall--i'd be interested in seeing it--but sadly for me i have to attend to other things.

normally, that would be the m.o.--perhaps had i had time to at least refer to it, the misunderstanding would not have developed.

mea culpa.

roach -

I am not taking it personally

I just want you (and certain others around here) to realize that there are conservatives in this world that aren't being led by blind faith. There are actually people on my side that are decent and would be offended by this type of blather even if we didn't like the sitting President.

There is a tendency to lump us all together as if we were cloned with genes from Rush, Savage and O'Reilly--which just isn't the case.

ok...

but the analysis above does stand, i think.
i'd be interested in reactions to it more than reactions against the possibility that a diversity of folk might be getting lumped under a rubric...

in general, when i talk about conservatives, i try to be careful to talk about the discourse not individuals who might articulate some or all of their politics through it. the question of why particular folk invest in that discourse is interesting but far more complicated to say anything about, i think.

I've never listened to Savage, but I know neither Rush nor O'Reilly would lament the lack of presidential assasins.

I'm still waiting for which Right Wingers joked that Clinton should be assassinated.

The IRA successfully campainged for funds in the USA AFTER their assassination attempt on Margaret Thatcher. They also tried to assassinate John Major.


I wonder how many Americans even know that? This sort of thing actually matters and bad jokes about how the world would be better off without Bush's policies fall well behind on the scale of important news. It is a testament to the American "angry right" that this quote-out-of-context got anywhere at all.


Where's the outrage at $1Billion missing from Iraqi oil revenues? http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=73536 --> 8 replies so far! The neo cons use taxpayers' money to fight an illegal war and line the pockets of their backers and nobody seems to care much. No wonder the thinking world is so disillusioned with the US!


UsTwo:
"Its something I would expect from a radical Islamist, not the United Kingdom."

Don't think we like you just because our lapdog Prime Minister is always there for Dubya. An in return what do we get? We were let off George's illegal steel tariffs early. Cheers! If you spent less time reading pathetic diversions like this one and reading properly informed comment and unbiased reporting instead then maybe you'd understand why everyone else hates W. There's plenty of valid reporting going on. If it doesn't fit with your own politics then you should look at why you think the way you do, just don't waste time with this nationalism crap.


Aladdin Sane:
"Little Charlie’s mother must’ve been a Glasgow heroin whore suffering from syphilis when he was born, because she has no doubt passed her madness on to him. Insolent cretin. Where is Thomas Hamilton when he’s really needed?"

For those who don't get the reference, Thomas Hamilton killed 16 primary school children in Dunblane (not Glasgow). It's interesting that the article's author overlooked the "mother as syphillitic heroin whore" explanation for Bush's freakish debate performance.


KMA-628:
"This makes me angry, real angry."

How about getting angry at something that matters? Foreign chemical companies illegally polluting fishing areas while getting hundred million dollar subsidies - which you pay for! http://www.theecologist.org/article.html?article=474

jimbob -

you are right, if all of that information is correct, then that is something to be concerned about. Each person has their own "issues" that are important to them, this is not one of mine. I have actually run up against and fought some enviro-wackos, so I don't normally lend them much credence. Kind of like extreme right-wingers, they tend to make their entire cause look bad.

As for the IRA, I would be interested in seeing the information about that (reputable source-please). I would be most curious about when it happened and who supplied the money, etc.

For the record, I am a nationalist. I don't care who you are or where you live, don't even joke about assasinating my President (regardless of who holds the position). Anytime I see anything like this in print or any other form of media, I will be pissed. I don't care about the context. I don't care about the "intent". I don't care if it is a feeble attempt at humor or irony. My opinion - criticize all you want, but keep it respectful (you'll notice that I follow that same rule on this forum).

By the way, there are a lot of us that actually do think and are extremely dissilussioned with the rest of the world. (i.e. Iraq war is illegal--why isn't the US helping in Sudan, etc.)

for what it's worth, i see nationalism as a collective mental disorder.

in the case of this election, i do not see what possible problem there could really be with all and any attempts to inform american voters that there is much at stake in this election, that bush is widely viewed around the world as having been a disaster as a president not only for the americans but for the entire global order.

in this case, nationalism seems to be invoked in order to enable folk to not think about what they might find to be unpleasant, to not introduce realilties that might force folk to think about bush in a frame of reference his party does not control.

to do this, the argument that has to stick is that the u.s. is at some level seperate from the rest of the world.
an idea that is ridiculous empirically and a gateway to fiasco politically.

i still maintain that it is defense of the otherwise outmoded notion of nationalism that explains more than anything else the entire iraq war farce, explains the republican's vitriolic actions under clinton (they know full well that clinton was not far from them ideologically, but he was too much a fan of multilateral agreements, too much willing to further the process of integrating the american economy into the global one--he did not pay adequate attention to tending the obsolete signifers of nation that conservative politics depends on)

dont believe me on iraq?
read the project for a new american century website--any critical reading of it prompts the argument that i am making to emerge clearly.

the bush administration can be seen as peforming a kind of neurotic reaction to the implications of a globalizing capitalism that they cannot criticize, that they have to see as an unqualified good--faced with this, and with the institutional implications of it (look at conventional conservative parties in europe--the writing is on the wall and the right knows it) they prefer to erect a fantasy of nationalism and use it to prop up their own political framework.

but maybe people prefer simple fictions to complex realities.
it fits well within an information context where news is understood as a commodity, where information is framing for advertising.

better not to think about it too much.
but that changes nothing about the status and function of nationalism.

Brighton Bomb, 1984
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2531583.stm

Mortar attack on downing Street, February 1991 (go to Security section)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/10_Downing_Street

IRA fundraising in the USA, June 1991
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/...tory301453.asp

Not sure what the 'Sunday Business Post' is, so here's something which linked to a now-dead page on the New York Post from 1992 (only did a quick search ;-)).
http://www.cronaca.com/archives/000014.html

Why nationalism is bad:

"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger"

The more people willing to join in with this 'denouncing', the more likelihood your country will become like Nazi Germany. The quote is from Herman Goerring at the Nuremberg trials.
http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?ItemID=15630

Protecting your president nomatter what, and demanding that others show no disrespect is one step along the path to totalitarianism.

/still reading your links

you do understand that I am not blind regarding my nationalistic pride. I would hope that I am intelligent enough to see if my "leader" is moving in a Nazi-like state.

There is a difference, in my opinion, between proudly supporting your country and your leader and what you describe.

//godwin's law

The Sunday Business Post is a leading financial and political paper from Ireland.


Mr Mephisto

just looked up Godwin's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

sounds like an advanced move in Mornington Crescent!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent

If I'm allowed a defence under that law it's that I was using the Nazis as an example of totalitarianism arising in a country where most people no doubt believed they were proudly supporting their leader but also demanded that others show no disrespect. Nothing to do with genocide.

it's funny, but true. Not in all cases, but I have seen it happen many, many times in different places.

you can of course use the fascism thing as a way to dismiss what is at issue here--its cheap and easy--but the main point for me at least is that the objection to people in other countries making their opinions (against bush in overwhelming majority) known to american voters is not a problem--using nationalism to object to the fact of it rather than think about what it might mean of america's implication in the wider world, and about the fact that much is at stake in the coming election **is** a problem.

Actually my original argument was that a poorly written joke by a no-mark TV reviewer is nothing to get wound up about, nothing about nationalism.

I thought i detected a nationalist undercurrent from some contributers but on rereading the thread I'm not sure where that came from.