« This wasn't just Plain terrible, this was... terrible with raisins in it | Main | Wolves. Scary, Scary Wolves. »

October 23, 2004

Comments

I thought it was a rather amusing way to end the article and think this is yet another boring case of faux outrage by the right directed at the left. Grow up and get over it.

What part of 'I won't tolerate trash behavior' did you not understand, McClelland? You're banned.

Moe, my problem with what you wrote is that is doesn't encourage any kind of discussion, just syncophancy. I think writing your feelings while asking us what ours were would have been a much more interesting way to approach this. Instead it's just a page out of the King and I. You might look just fine in that Yul Brenner costume for all i know and you certainly have his petulant tone down pat.

I don't necessarily disagree with your feeling that the writer stepped over your line and possibly mine as well. What i don't care for is you telling everyone you've drawn a line for everyone else at the same time. Maybe someone has an opinion that would shed light for us all, maybe not. But discouraging discussion is pretty anti-american and isn't it a bit ironic that our own CIA has plotted assassination and for all we know missed more targets than they hit? And they were assassinating people who had little or no effect on our lives, unlike our country today which has an immeasurable effect on every country in the world.

There was a potential here for some interesting talk and i for one would have liked to have heard from all ends of the spectrum. That's one of the reasons i come here.

Hopefully you'll take this criticism with the same grains of salt that you take my kudos.

R. McC. - we've had too many assassinations in our history for this to be remotely amusing.

And if that doesn't convince you, consider that the effect on our democracy would be awful beyond belief.

And if that doesn't convince you, remember how you felt about Jesse Helms saying Clinton would be in danger if he visited North Carolina.

"What i don't care for is you telling everyone you've drawn a line for everyone else at the same time. "

Bluntly, I don't care. I pay for this site: I will tolerate neither calls for assassination of George W Bush (or, should he be end up being elected, John F Kerry) nor the endorsement of same. People who have too much of a problem with that may go to other sites with my compliments.

This is exactly the type of plant which I would imagine the Right would place, simply to start trouble among the Left. The Right wants nothing more than for the Left to appear childish and fragmented. The Right attacked Kerry's war record persistently, and so hide Bush's lack of a valid war record. It is like Kerry's votes on taxes, which is likely to be close to the Mean vote of Republicans on these tax bills. Then there is the Bush charge that Kerry does not support the troops in Iraq, what crap! Kerry is trying to get them out, so they don't get killed or wounded. Every Democratic blogger should report the number of Americans killed or wounded in Iraq every hour, from now until the Election polls close. lgl

I agree that this is over the ine, but I do think it is satire run amok. Also rilkefan wrote
R. McC. - we've had too many assassinations in our history for this to be remotely amusing.

That's part of it, isn't it? Brits haven't had an assassination (I think) of a public figure. Closest thing I can think of are the various IRA bombings, but they are explicable in a way that the killers listed are not. And Brits can be more insular than Americans, wondering why an American doesn't know where Hertfordshire is but thinking that one could go from NY to the Grand Canyon is a half day.

I completely support Moe in this. It's his site; if someone doesn't like his decisions, they can say so so long as they don't break the posting rules. If Moe were to be inconsistent or unfair in applying his own posting rules, I'd complain (probably), but it would still be his right to be as unfair and inconsistent as he wants; it's up to us readers to take our patronage elsewhere if we feel we're not getting our money's worth.

And, yeah, I completely agree that calling for the killing of political figure in our polities, wherever they may be, is beyond the pale, given modern history. (The careful thing about the way I phrased this is that ObWings and other blogs are highly unlikely to get any comments from Zimbabwe, or the one or two other places I might happen to not be horribly upset about.)

Besides, what the hell improvement does even the most insanely partisan Republican think Dick Cheney is going going to be, pray tell? (Don't; that's a rhetorical question.)

But, yeah, I don't find assassination "amusing." More strongly, even though my suggestion won't make any difference, I think anyone who does find it amusing, regarding whatever politician, should stop and think long and hard about what they are saying, and thinking, and try plugging in the names of politicians they admire, and considering how "amusing" it would be to hear someone else asserting how "amusing" it is.

Grow up, indeed.

Over at tacitus.org, Armando and Yermum have well-written responses amounting to, Toss the bums.

I gotta stand with Moe on this one.* The Guardian bit is below contempt and totally tasteless. When the rhetoric stoops so low that the President's death is considered humorous, we're way past saving. Only idiots and the profoundly soulless resort to that sort of thinking...that it wouldn't occur to this writer to edit himself is all I need to write him off. His paper should do the same.

Again and again in this campaign I've hoped someone would find the words we'll need to unite the nation after the election. This sort of nonsense makes that so much harder. Someone is going to win the election and that someone will still be the leader of our nation, representing us, and deserving of the respect of that position. Where does one go after suggesting assassination as a response to an election? Even in dark humor? In that sense, both politically and rhetorically, this kind of crap throws the baby out with the bath water.

*And wilfred, I think the dialog you seek is actually possible in this context if you'll give Moe his due and then continue. As you note, the "writer stepped over your line and possibly mine as well." Starting there is an excellent way to find common ground first and then explore whether or not there are differences worth noting.

I'm slightly amused to read the Tacitus post rilkfan linked, because I'm shocked, shocked, that Bird Dog managed to unearth the deeply hidden fact that the Grauniad leans overwhelmingly against Bush. Who knew?!

Personally, having said what I said above, were I in editorial control of the Graun, I wouldn't fire a columnist who wrote that, though I would have asked for a rewrite before publication; if the columnist said "publish it as is or I quit," I honestly can't say which way I'd go, but, then, if I were in editorial control of the Guardian, I'd be a different, British, person anyway.

For whatever it's worth, which is very little, it's not as if the columnist isn't reflecting a "joke"/thought that could be heard in a lot of pubs, and too many extremist lefty sites in America, just as it isn't difficult to find extreme righties who will voice the thought or "joke" that the "traitor" Kerry deserves to be killed, or those sodomising, drug-selling, murdering Clintons. I say this not to excuse, but to cluck, and sadly shake my head.

Too many people are idiots. (Of course, most of us have an idiot moment now and again, too.)

Oops. Italics end!

Moe, maybe it won't help your blood pressure, but it helped mine a tad: over at tacitus.org it's stated that the writer in question is a satirist, not a straight-up op-ed columnist.

Poor Nicholson Baker. He wrote an entire novel about assassinating President Bush, and it's already gotten less attention than this column. What's the world coming to?

I'm with Moe too. This is over the line. Actually, any imaginable line.

For what it's worth, I wandered around the Guardian site to find out who this guy is, and he seems to be a television critic commenting on the debates as TV, not an editorial columnist. (I don't know what difference this makes, but mention it for the record.) You can read his take on the Brit version of Queer Eye here, for instance.

I agree with Moe.

I assume it was just a flippant way to end the article, but you're right ... the reason Bush and Cheney need to be quietly taken away in straight jackets is they think nothing of killing thousands of people to pursue their ambitions.

So then who are we if we will also join that fold of gunslingers?

Besides -- snuffing Bush puts Cheney in office. Snuffing both of them puts Dennis Hastert in the Oval Office.

Just as Poppy Bush rang the Dan Quayle bell to stop people from even thinking or joking about assassination (although those who look more deeply said it was actually a hedge against Impeachment on the BCCI bribery machine --which, incidently, was exploded by Senator Kerry) the living proof that violence only makes things worse is right out there -- Iraq disintegrates and Bush's pals get rich.

Fuck 'em.

But make them live loong loong lives so they can reflect on the horror and pain they've caused. Maybe in a Sartrean configuration where they share a flat with Osama ben Ladn and Saddam Hussein.

As a representative of the rabid partisan opposition, agree completely with Moe.

And as a veteran of the Sixties, age 10 in 1960, which was an era of illegal political activity, I might mention that I cannot ever remember this being discussed by even the most radical of activists. Perhaps because we had experienced too many. There may come a time for illegal political activity and civil disobedience. Remember Ghandi walking to the sea to make his own salt was illegal. Such activity may start with unauthorized marches and sit-ins, but that is where it should start. Violence against the state should be a last resort, when public demonstrations are no longer possible because of extreme violence by the state. We are still so far from that point that it is not in sight.

In any case, it was determined in the late sixties both theoretically and empirically that violence against persons was counterproductive, alienating too many of your own supporters.

edward dear friend. just where didn't i 'give moe his due'? did you read my original post? in fact i bent over backwards and only got, well nevermind. My post was constructive criticism and my hand was extended out in my post. Did you see that at all in the response to my post?

sorry folks, but the 'it's my sandbox' line is for 6 year olds, not adults. we are all supposedly welcome here and if we play by the posting rules we should be valued here, not shunned. And when the sandbox starts to sound like Cartman, i do have a tendency to rebel. And like i said previously, our government has no problem attemping to/assassinating world leaders, funny how we cry foul when others even mention it, most likely satirically when we ouselves actually do it. How is it that no one here chose the empathetic route and instead chose to shoot the messengers?

what i find ironic here is that we debate democracy in a fiefdom and ban people and push them away in a place dominated by those of the Christian faith where the tenets are about forgiveness and inclusion, love and healing vs. banning and gag rules. May i suggest those who profess this faith walk the walk instead of talking the talk? It would be great if this thread stimulated reflection as opposed to knee jerk reaction. Sorry, i know how Kerry-esque that must sound.

i very much value this blog but we should all be encouraged to bring our own uniqueness here. no one has said anything worth being banned in this thread so far. That comment was about the harsh judgement of a website and the tone of the post, not about assassination. If it's Henry VIII or Queen Victoria time here and 'off with their heads', so be it but ultimately sad for us all. But this blog can be a beautiful choir of many disparate voices making strange and beautiful music and it should sound alot more like Mahler than Spears.

thanks to all who stayed to the end of what feels like my personal jon stewart moment.

Honestly, I envy Moe his ability to be outraged by this. Unfortunately, I'm no longer surprised that stuff like this gets printed. I figure the paper was just looking to sell more copies and get more hits for its website.

That there might be opinions other than "calling for the assasination of the US President is unacceptable" is also unspurprising as is the belief by some that the souls of President Bush and others may one day share space with dictators and terrorists. I'm sure that there are those that feel so angry and disenfranchised that they might, in weaker moments, agree with the writer here. You don't have to tell me here on Moe's blog. I know.

I've had my weak moments for sure, and to be honest this same thought has crossed my mind once or twice. I recognized it as a bad thought, but no more so than when you're having a bad day and you want to beat on the person who can't make up their mind about what to order for lunch when you only have 30 minutes to eat. Do I think the world would be better of if Bush were dead? Yes, very much so. Do I wish for someone to actually do it. No.

And just to balance this out, because god forbid we point out the same kind of crazy crap coming out of the mouth of AMERICAN journalist's(as opposed to European, as if that's somehow WORSE than an American encouraging assasination of political figures) I give you this gem:

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too," pundit Ann Coulter told this month's meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference. "Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors."

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/2002/02/15/news/opinion/2674725.htm

Your outrage rings hollow. In other words. Whatever.

There will be no uniting the nation after the election. That idiot Bush has made plenty sure of that. Whoever wins I expect four more years of harsh bickering and me continuously wondering if it's even worth my time to speak to republicans about politics.

Put me down as utterly opposed to this kind of nonsense.

I also can't stand that moronic cartoonist, Steve Bell.

One thing that sucks about American politics today is because the stakes seem so high, people start to rationalize all kinds of stupidity by their "team."

While I appreciate the sentiment, the label of "that rag" applied to the Guardian seems a trifle over the top, don't you think? If we were to judge all newspapers by the worst excesses of the columnists they run, ill-advisedly or otherwise, there would scarce be a paper in the world that weren't a two-bit rag.

The Guardian may lean to the European left -- well over in Socialist la-la land from the American perspective, I know -- but it also has excellent reporting and a healthy mix of irreverence and biting seriousness in its articles and editorials.

Were it not likely to be seen as yet more European snootiness, I would also offer the argument that humour varies from one side of the pond to the other. British writers writing for British audiences write differently to American writers writing for American audiences. American readers reading things that British writers have written for British readers, on the other hand, remain American. This is not to take away your right to be offended at the writer's lack of tact and sensitivity, but merely to point out that it may not have actually crossed his mind that anyone would take him seriously. Whether he should have thought that, ah, now that is a different matter.

If Ann Coulter and her brethren are still free to call me a traitor for exercizing my rights as an American, this dude can say whatever he wants to. Sorry. I know that a lot of folks here probably think that Dave Neiwert is over the top when he points out extreme rhetoric from the right, but this is the flip side of the sort of stuff we've been supposed to ignore as the ranting of folks on the margin. Boo hoo.

Word to those on the right if things break the other way - you sow ice, you're gonna harvest wind.

Hello? This isn't a call for someone to actually kill George Bush. I mean, really. It doesn't even sound like it. It's an atheist saying - bad things happen to good people, and bad people always get away scot free. It's not even ambiguous.

Moe, can I point something out?

Well, I will anyway.

Based on my experience with you as moderator, you don't tend to have much of a taste for pure sarcastic humor. I'm aware of this, because I can think of a recent occasion when you were utterly outraged - and all I was doing was making an (admittedly tasteless, and too-easily misunderstood) pun.

You were right to call me down on it and insist I explain myself/apologize, because it was too easily misunderstood.

This guy Charlie Brooker writes satire. He does a regular TV column: your quote is from one of them. Sample couple of paragraphs from an earlier column about a (serious) TV program on dirty bombs:

Still, it's not all bad news. For one thing, the need for immediate decontamination means that if a dirty bomb goes off near your office, you'll get to see all your workmates stripping off and showering, like, totally naked. Honestly, you'd see it all. I can't stress this highly enough - you will DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY see your boss's bum.

Secondly, since a dirty bomb would leave a large section of the capital uninhabitable for decades, house prices would tumble - thereby allowing me to finally gain a foothold on the property ladder. Christ, I could probably buy Clarence House for 25p. So there you go. Always a silver lining.

This column, FWIW, is published (according to the website) in "The Guide" - which is a little glossy booklet included with the main part of the paper at weekends, and is mainly, according to Guardian readers of my acquaitance, perused for the TV listings.

In short, what you are objecting to here is not a serious call for Bush to be assassinated: this is tasteless, satiric, dark humor. You may feel it's over the line: so do I. But when a humorist goes over the line, I feel rather differently about it than when someone who is supposed to be writing serious comment goes over the line. A tasteless joke is a rather different offence than a serious call for assassination.

If you want to complain about it, I think your best bet is to write to the reader's editor - and you might find his current column of interest, too, when you're judging the Guardian.

Making lemonade out of lemons here, I wonder if anyone would like to comment on the notion of a transnational left and right? I think it is certainly more possible on the left, as the American right (as is every country's right of center grouping?) more idiosyncratic than the left, but the inital parallelism gives way to some pretty big divergences (like the fact that it is Labour that is supporting the war in Iraq) Would anyone like to argue that the British left and the US left should be taken together or should be treated completely separately? If not, could someone identify the overlaps and the disjunctions between the US left and the European left (as well as the various lefts in Europe)?

Not to claim any expertise on the matter, but from my humble observations, I would say that the Democratic Party would be a centrist or right of center Party in most European Countries.

As for the internationalization issue, Most right wing parties represent wealth and sold to the public using Nationalism (usually rabid nationalism) where as the left is occasionnaly based upon ideology and more often than not based upon the opposition to the right and has a tendency to be more cosmopolitan.

As for the question of bringing civility to the polital dialog on November 3, forget it. It's not going to happen!!! If Kerry wins the Right will start a new Arkansa Project and if Bush wins, well there has to be couple of ME countries that we have not yet invaded and whose Goverment has not been toppled, in other word expect more wars.

Bill - re the 'outrage rings hollow' crack; if you don't trust me to be honest, there are an infinity of blog sites out there that you can peruse. Feel free to go to one of them, if you like - but you do not get to be telepathic here.

JerryN - Brooker may spout out his dreck as he likes, but if shows up here, the person who does it goes away. No matter what that loon Coulter might have said in her turn. Simple and straightforward.

McDuff - point taken about the 'rag' comment. I was angry when I wrote it.

Everyone who brought up satire - I've seen that used too many times as a post facto excuse for appalling behavior. Indeed, I've even seen it used by/about [Edited after publishing, because I quite unfairly have that ability; if I could allow people edit their own comments, I would] the aforementioned Coulter to excuse her comments about the suitability of blowing up the New York Times building. Shall we excuse that, as well?

Look, folks, I don't like being a heavy. And I recognize this guy's history - but still I'm going to be a humorless toad about it. This was hate speech, even if it was satire, which I personally don't buy. He's free to indulge in it, elsewhere, but I won't tolerate calls for assassination on this blog. Scream, rant, rave, complain, bitch, moan, snarl, pound the tables and ponitificate about public figures all you like - but no calls for their deaths. I don't care how mainstream it gets out there, and I don't care how likely/unlikely it would have been for it to appear here spontaneously; it's still banned, and I've so noted in the Posting Rules.

Moe

"Remember Ghandi walking to the sea to make his own salt was illegal."

Gandhi. Gandhi. Gandhi.

Pet peeve, along with "Tolkein," "Azimov," "Arthur C. Clark," "Ursula LeGuin," and other frequently heard of non-existent people. Pray forgive.

wilfred, you know I adore you, and perhaps I should not try and blog so late at night, but I had a simple point about chronology (by first agreeing, as you seemed to be inclined to do, you can freely move on, without your comment sounding like a confrontation, to discuss the more subtle points). That's all.

The funny thing about the 'outrage rings hollow' is that I don't believe any of us defend Ann Coulter. While on the other hand, Bill, you defend this very bad piece.

Furthermore I'm not entirely convinced it is satire in the classic sense of saying something you don't believe for shock value.

is that I don't believe any of us defend Ann Coulter.

I've certainly seen right-wingers defend Ann Coulter.

But I want to share: Slap the candidate!

It's perfectly even-handed. You can do it to either Bush or Kerry. It's even better with sound-effects.

Sebastian: I don't think Bill was defending it at all. I don't care enough about Booker to figure out whether it was satire, and I don't think it would make it OK if it were, but if you read some of his other columns, it's hard to avoid thinking that he's one of those (annoying) people who like saying outrageous things because they think it's clever.

I don't think anyone here would defend stuff like this for a moment.

Get serious folks. Assassination should never be discussed. Period. As I said, I saw three political assassinations,four if you count Malcolm X.

But if you are frustrated and angry about Bush, I promise you, he can be made to resign. I consider this administration an easy target for non-violent illegal protest.

Why illegal? ( And I am only talking about peaceful but unauthorized protest;most of MLK's marches were not permitted). The authorities must feel they are losing control. The goal is to instill a paranoia and induce an overreaction either in the gov't's move to illegal activities( Nixon's enemies list, bugging and wiretapping, Watergate breakins) or in a governmental disproportionate use of violence(Kent State, Jackson, Chicago). And it must remain non-violent, even when attacked with violence. You got to eat a little pepper spray, and take a beating. The goal is to move legitimacy from the government to the protesters.

And with Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft I have no doubt they would lose their fragile hold on legitimacy very very quickly. If the opposition wants a second Bush term destroyed, it can be done. Think about it. Plan.

Assassination should never be discussed. Period.

Eating babies should never be discussed. Period.

While I can agree that this piece is over the line...over the line and way into the next county, in fact, I can't see what the point of getting upset over it is.

It's not an OpEd, it's a humor piece. I realize that a lot of people may have missed that because it's not funny. It's mean and nasty and not very interesting and original. If it weren't for the inflammatory, last line, nobody would even care to read it.

I'm not excusing it or dismissing it because of that. During the Clinton years, El Rushbo the drug addict used to say all manner of horrid things about the President and then roll his eyes and claim that he was just a "humorist" and that Dems had no sense of humor. Didn't buy it then and won't buy it now. Not funny.

Of course that raises the question of what if it actually was funny? As I mentioned on Tac, the late, great Bill Hicks used to do nasty stuff like this all the time and I could imagine that he'd be saying that and worse on a nightly basis.

I'm a lefty and a Kerry supporter, but this article made me angry; it's completely outrageous. Whenever I get mad at some of the more extreme rightwing loons, I try to remind myself there are a few people on my own side of the isle I can be ashamed of.

On another note, this is the second time in as many weeks I've been embarrassed by something in the Guardian. With friends like these,...

--Rick Taylor

Exactly, Chuchundra.

There was a joke going round sometime when I was a student (1988-1992): I find by googling that it's now tagged as a joke Kerry made, but I don't recall it being tied to Senator Kerry then.

The joke was: "What are the standing orders for the Secret Service if someone assassinates the President?" and the answer was "Shoot Dan Quayle."

Need I say that no one who told that joke was advocating assassination, either of President Bush or of the Vice President?

It was a tasteless joke. I've heard a version of it more recently that involves Bush and Cheney. I've heard tasteless jokes about the WTC attack, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden.

Some jokes are over the line. Some jokes aren't even funny. I agree that this column is not funny and is over the line - but a rotten comedian telling a bad joke does not merit the same level of outrage as a serious op-ed columnist calling for someone to assassinate the President. It just doesn't.

I don't think that you want to bring Swift into this, Jes, because if that's the touchstone for satire Brooks falls down entirely. Swift was taking a idea (that England's policies were stripping Ireland of its resources) to its logical conclusion (so they might as well eat their babies, too) - which was also an absurd conclusion, since no sane human being would seriously advocate the consumption of babies, and indicative that the initial premise should likewise be reexamined.

So, unless Brooks had as his aim a rejection of anti-Bush rhetoric (which I have yet to see argued), well...

Moe

PS: That slap the candidate site was wrong, evil and absolutely addictive. Hell, I was even bipartisan about it.

And as a followup, Jes - I take your point that this was not an official op-ed, and should not be seen as one. I have already retracted the sole slur that I made against the Guardian; while I think that they should have not printed Brooker's article in its current form, I shouldn't have called it a 'rag'.

Moe, when I cited Swift, I was specifically responding to Bob McManus's contention that assassination should never be discussed, not to your original post.

- which I still think is overkill. One of the other blogs you linked to referred to the article as an "op-ed" - which is just plain misleading. It's a column about recent TV programs. It's about as serious as that Dan Quayle joke I cited earlier.

And as a followup, Jes

Noted. (You wrote your followup faster than I wrote mine.)

That slap the candidate site was wrong, evil and absolutely addictive.

*grins* I love it. It's even better than this shoot-the-kitten site I found earlier this year. So far I've only got up to 9 - I'm told there's a payoff on 10.

"Moe, when I cited Swift, I was specifically responding to Bob McManus's contention that assassination should never be discussed, not to your original post."

Ah. Right. I think that we've all got it straightened out, then. Payoff at 10, huh?

Get a 10 and you see Howard Dean

Aw... you spoiled the surprise!

As someone who moves in UK comedy circles I should point out that Charlie Brooker is a comedy writer. He specialises in reactionary, rather twisted, relatively offensive comedy, that the more conservative (with a small 'c') would call 'in very dubious taste'.

What he wrote was intended as a joke. I can't, of course, read his mind, but I know his style, and that was a joke.

I try very hard to avoid saying there are any jokes that 'should not' be made - however, this is for when people are down the pub (where they also come up with ideas to attempt to influence the voting in Clark County). News outlets I think have a bit more responsibility over what they should allow on their paper or webspace.

It's all very daring and beautifully shocking, and in the worst possible taste, and that of course makes it exciting and fresh and innovative and rebellious and all those wonderful excuses for actually just indulging one's over-fondness for being offensive and not coming up with something subtle which requires far more effort and imagination.

As a side point, I don't really think much of the argument that Britons are less sensitive to political assassination than the Americans. We've had them. We've also had them throughout history. Kings, politicians, even a PM - Spencer Perceval. We've had, of course, the IRA targetting people. I grew up with all that. What we haven't had is a President assassinated. And that's because we don't have them. So jokes about presidential assassinations are less sensitive over here.

The Guardian and the BBC are beginning to find out their websites have global audiences and the kind of stuff that wouldn't get a certain reaction from your standard British audience - for which, I'm sure, Brooker's article was intended - would get it from a US one. Often the BBC and Guardian fail to remember the international audience.

Shorter James Casey:

1. Charlie Brooker is a comedy writer.

2. The comment at the end of the article was a joke.

3. The Guardian should not have allowed it.

Moe: I retract my outrage rings hollow statement. You are correct, mindreading off limits. Your outrage is real and I apologise for implying it is not and you are not being honest.

I am not defending the piece per say, but rather trying to point out that talk like this is nothing new, and that people often have thoughts like this, giving voice to them is another matter.

I just don't see it as that big of a deal, however tasteless it may be, and yes, I find it tasteless while at the same time empathising with the frustration behind it.

As a side point, I don't really think much of the argument that Britons are less sensitive to political assassination than the Americans.

I'll argue the other side a bit. I don't know about Wilkes Booth, (though I would note that heavy handed attempts to tie Jefferson Davis to the assassination, which led to him being imprisoned in exceedingly harsh conditions for a year, led to a backlash and ended up raising sympathy for him, a lesson we might do well to heed) but Hinckley and Oswald represent modern killers who wielded a huge amount of power because of mental imbalance. Is there a comparable person in recent Brit history? Perceval was assassinated in 1812, so it is certainly not on the minds of Brits today.

I would also point out that in listing presidential assassins, Czolgosz (McKinley's assassin) always seems to be left out, but I think that is because the name is impossible to spell.

l.j.:
The following googled list of political assassinations in the UK/Ireland is, uhh, a bit tendentious in spots:

# Sir Henry Hughes Wilson, (1922), British field marshal, Conservative politician.
# Michael Collins, (1922), President of the Provisional Government.
# James Connolly, (1916), Labour leader and Irish nationalist executed by the British after the Easter Rising.
# Kevin O'Higgins, (1927), Irish politician.
# Christopher Ewart-Biggs, (1976), British ambassador to Ireland.
# Georgi Markov, (1978), Bulgarian dissident.
# Airey Neave, (1979), British Conservative politician.
# Earl Mountbatten, (1979), Vice-admiral, last viceroy of India.
# Rev. Robert Bradford, (1981), Unionist MP in Northern Ireland.
# Ian Gow, (1990), British Conservative politician.

Airey Neave? Ian Gow? Anyway, nothing like JFK, but perhaps enough to be conscious of.

Between that and the "letters to ohio residents," I'm starting to think they've got some agents provacateur in there. Not really, but people so blinkered that they might as well be.

Czolgosz, working man, born in the middle of Michigan?

Anyway.

I wouldn't discount stuff as far back as 1812 - because Britain has a longer period of history than the US, stuff from two hundred years ago tends to be viewed as 'pretty recent'. I mean, when schoolkids get told about events from the first millennium AD, 1812 isn't all that long ago. That's the way it works around here. 19th Century was not that long ago for us. Shakespeare, now that's getting on a bit.

I don't think you can say (although... you just did) that just because there aren't as high profile people, we're less sensitive to it. You see, often we don't know the names of the IRA guys. Often they didn't get arrested. Some of them are now in Sinn Fein which is problematic because people - myself included - believe they are working for our best chance for peace.

The fact that we had, until very recently, decades of a terrorist group actively aiming for political targets makes our sensibility and sensitivity to this issue fairly hard to dismiss or diminish.

As for people killed...

Ian Gow, former MP and staunch Unionist, was killed by the IRA in 1990. They left a bomb under the driver's seat of his car, fatally wounding him; he died in agonising pain 10 minutes later in front of his wife.

Earl Mountbatten was murdered by the IRA in 1979. He was the guy who introduced Prince Philip to Queen Elizabeth II. He was the effective father figure for the Royal Family from the ascension of QE2. Due to his more or less adoption of Philip, Mountbatten-Windsor is the personal surname of many members of the Royal Family, including the Prince of Wales. Mountbatten was a little over 79 when the IRA exploded a bomb in his yacht.

If you count Mr. Lennon, of course; he was murdered by a deranged guy, and his death had a major effect on the psyche over here. I was three at the time and I can remember where I was when I was told. And how difficult it was to take in.

Just the recent activity of the IRA alone is enough to make political murder a relative no-go topic. But Presidential stuff is more alien to us.

I would also point out that in listing presidential assassins, Czolgosz (McKinley's assassin) always seems to be left out, but I think that is because the name is impossible to spell.

First I'd ever heard of him was when I saw Assassins a decade ago. But here's a quick tip on Polish orthography: after a consonant, their 'z' functions pretty much like English 'h'. So, think of this guy as Cholgosh (with long o's) and maybe it won't be so hard to spell. (I won't mention that the 'l' in this case sounds more like a 'w').

BTW, Polish 'rz', which seems to generate the most accusations of unpronounceability, is the sound most dictionaries write as 'zh', as in "fusion." (Except when it follows a voiceless consonant, in which it's pronounced 'sh', as in Krzyszewski or Jastrzemski).

Once you know the rules, it's much easier in Polish to spell a word you've only heard, or to say a word you've only seen spelled, than it is in English, so such accusations coming from an English speaker are rather hard to take.

Hey Moe -- just in case you're wondering whether one side ever condemns its own excesses without prompting, the Shrillblog (of all places) vivisects an analogy between Republicans and Nazis. (And, like most things on the Shrillblog, it's well written: e.g., "Looking for Nazi parallels blinds us to the fact that the Bush administration is made up of dishonest, incapable, easily-duped buffoonish ideologues, and takes up free time that could be more usefully spent ululating mindlessly to the dead, uncaring stars.")

Well, playing out my hand here, everyone listed (with the exception of Markov, who was assassinated by agents of the country he defected from) were tied into the IRA. This is different from having someone who is a few sandwiches shy of a picnic lunch decide that he is going to kill the PM. The example of Lennon's killer is interested because it took place in New York.

Don Delillo's book Libra, touches on this. One review noted that 4 presidents have been killed and another 6 have narrowly missed assassination, giving every president a 1 in 4 chance of having an attempt on their life made. Even though it may surprise most americans to realize that, (it did me) that subconscious knowledge colors our perception of the joke.

I realize that one hesitates to present Americans with the notion that they have a unique sensitivity, but since the original question relates to where satire begins and ends in the UK vs the US, I think there is something there, but I am certainly not trying to accuse Brits of a lack of sensitivity. Consider it more like the difference between baseball and cricket. ;^>

Once you know the rules, it's much easier in Polish to spell a word you've only heard, or to say a word you've only seen spelled, than it is in English, so such accusations coming from an English speaker are rather hard to take.

As someone who 'professes' to be a linguist, I don't think denying the reality that multiple consonants give English speakers fits is necessarily wrong and I'm certainly not holding it against the Poles in general or the Polish language in particular. I know that I had to Google it, and I typed it in as Colgosz, to which Google corrected my spelling. And given the way Americans spell, (one Harvard graduate who runs a much frequented and enjoyed blog just wrote 'reigns of power' fer chrissakes) asking them to remember the rules of a different language is really pushing the envelope.

At any rate, don't blame the poor English speakers for the problem, blame Caxton on setting the orthography before the Great Vowel Shift (more enjoyable referred to as the 'Great Vowel Movement' by smartass college students)

At any rate, don't blame the poor English speakers for the problem, blame Caxton on setting the orthography before the Great Vowel Shift

Yeah, but at least with the orthography in its current form tracing word origins and change over time is a lot easier than it would be otherwise. English spelling makes each word a mini-history lesson.

ObGreatVowelShift: "May 5, 1403. The Great English Vowel Shift begins. Giles of Tottenham calls for ale at his favorite pub and is perplexed when the barmaid tells him that the fishmonger is next door." (from DATES IN THE MONTH OF MAY THAT ARE OF INTEREST TO LINGUISTS)

Oh, not trying to blame anyone -- just wanted to point out the irony of a native English speaker mocking Polish spelling. Also thought I'd provide a little tutorial in order to demystify it a tad, just as a public service.

given the way Americans spell

Well, that's why we need spelling reform. Why should anyone be forced to waste valuable brain cells keeping track of the difference between 'rain', 'rein', and 'reign'?

'Great Vowel Movement'

Hee hee, I'd never heard that before (my specialty was Slavic, so I probably missed all the good Germanic jokes).

kenB: Why should anyone be forced to waste valuable brain cells keeping track of the difference between 'rain', 'rein', and 'reign'?

Why not? What else are we using them for?

The Guardian has pulled the article.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke

Ha, told you all it was a joke.

And the moral of the story is, James Casey is always right.

Glad they took it down. Glad they apologised. It was a joke, but without getting into a discussion on the quality of said joke, it was thoughtless of Brooker, and irresponsible of the Guardian. I wonder if Rusbridger had a part in this action. From my occasional dealings with him, he's a very reasonable man.

The whole thing is too long, but I can't resist posting the first two verses of this almost a century old rhyme, intended to emphasis the difficulties we had with English:

Dearest creature in creation,
Study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress you'll tear.
So shall I! Oh hear my prayer,
Pray, console your loving poet,
Make my coat look new, dear, sew it?

Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it's written.)
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as vague and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, toe.

"And the moral of the story is, James Casey is always right."

I learn something new every day.

Yeah, well, it's handy to keep in mind.

Out of curiosity, how many of the words in the poem dutchmarbel posted have changed spelling in American English? Because, as a Briton, I have no problem reading it.

Out of curiosity, how many of the words in the poem dutchmarbel posted have changed spelling in American English? Because, as a Briton, I have no problem reading it.

None, to the best of my knowledge; I don't have any problem with it either (as an American raised in the colonies, though, so my opinion is suspect) except for the not-quite-slanted-more-like-tilted rhyme "heard"/"word" which works in American English and some standard British dialects (e.g. London) but not so well in Received.

I'm considered clever and glib in a boorish sort of way. As a consequence, I embarrass myself from time to time. Regardless, I have this disdain for bullies who intentionally cause pain then hide behind the joke. I also cringe from the exposure to many editorial cartoonists who veil their dishonesty with satire. I've seen many who post here misinterpret irony and can only wonder what a third of the electorate believes and why. I suspect the left knows they can capture thousands of votes from those who accept misinformation. The point I'm drifting to is that there are those that know they can justify and end through nefarious means. We don't 'understand' suicide bombers but we should. Fortunately we maintain a semblance of repugnancy to stoop that low. But stoop we do. Moe knows.

It was an ignorant joke, one whose premise can be taken apart by thinking about reality for five seconds: anyone who can't stand this administration (as I can't) ought to realize that killing Bush would accomplish nothing, and probably make matters much, much worse. It was like a more virulent version of those tiresome "observational comedy" gags that rely only on the superficiality of the comic's observations. ("Hey, will they SHOOT ME if I cut the tag off the mattress??" No, as you can tell by reading the tag on the mattress; thank you, come again.)

Out of curiosity, how many of the words in the poem dutchmarbel posted have changed spelling in American English? Because, as a Briton, I have no problem reading it.

As a foreigner (Dutch) reading it out loud is quite an accomplishment ;-)

Just to keep anyone interested in this busy, the full poem (plus two others) is here

Clearly references to "assination" are not amusing. It makes me think of references made by Ann Coulter to the use of baseball bats as a tool for communication with liberal "traitors." I don't find it surprising, given the tone of her rhetoric, that Ms. Coulter was assaulted with pies during her speaking tour.
Perhaps Ms. Coulter needs to be reminded that "fighting words" are an affirmative defense to assault and battery, and in many jurisdictions speech that is calculated to incite violence is not protected by the First Amendment. I love the way she calls half the country "traitors," among other vile names and pointed inferences, then disingenuously acts surprised when students aim pies at her. She's lucky it wasn't a shotgun. (I anticipate the story of her 12-step "rehab" to be rushed to the presses in a few years as well.) Speech like hers is dangerous not just for liberals, but for all Americans. It breeds hate that divides our country, and division just makes us more vulnerable to manipulation by foreign interests. Liberals and conservatives can debate issues and find common solutions without this kind of vitriol; indeed, such is necessary for a strong country. Neocons need to follow the lead of the National Review and cut this harpy loose, in my opinion.

Clearly references to "assasination" are not amusing. It makes me think of references made by Ann Coulter to the use of baseball bats as a tool for communication with liberal "traitors." I don't find it surprising, given the tone of her rhetoric, that Ms. Coulter was assaulted with pies during her speaking tour.
Perhaps Ms. Coulter needs to be reminded that "fighting words" are an affirmative defense to assault and battery, and in many jurisdictions speech that is calculated to incite violence is not protected by the First Amendment. I love the way she calls half the country "traitors," among other vile names and pointed inferences, then disingenuously acts surprised when students aim pies at her. She's lucky it wasn't a shotgun. (I anticipate the story of her 12-step "rehab" to be rushed to the presses in a few years as well.) Speech like hers is dangerous not just for liberals, but for all Americans. It breeds hate that divides our country, and division just makes us more vulnerable to manipulation by foreign interests. Liberals and conservatives can debate issues and find common solutions without this kind of vitriol; indeed, such is necessary for a strong country. Neocons need to follow the lead of the National Review and cut this harpy loose, in my opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.