The Ridiculously Reactionary and Sensationalist, Grossly Inappropriate Smallholder Replies to His Best Man
You'd never know it from this blog, but we are all tied (perhaps indirectly) by strong bonds of friendship. We just get a wee bit excited by ideas and politics. Which is how it should be.
Both the Minister of Propagands and the Maximum Leader were part of my wedding party. If any readers are interested in a picture of the two of them cavorting on a couch wearing only tuxedo tops and boxer shorts, send an e-mail request to smallholder@nakedvillainy.com
In his latest blog entry (how many fan mails will he get this time?), the Minister of Propaganda writes:
On the same point, I obviously wasn't clear when I complained about the general tone of discussion on the blog concerning the Spanish election. I think all of the 1938 comparisons amount to reactionary sensationalism, but it was specifically the Minister of Agriculture who called the Spanish 'nimrods,' which I found grossly inappropriate. Leave the hyperbole aside: its' ridiculous to equate a shift of parliamentary control in the Spanish government (some 150 seats for the Socialists vs. some 140 seats for the conservatives, neither party with a controlling majority) to the appeasement of Hitler. If the U.S. suffers another major attack before November, should all good patriots (of which I consider myself one) fall in behind Bush because it's important we not give the perception of changing course? Absurd.
Well, lets see:
Previous Hitler aggressions --> Hitler's claims on the Sudetenland --> Munich Appeasement --> Further aggression.
Previous al Queda atrocities --> Al Queda's attack on Spain --> Spanish withdrawal from Iraq --> Further aggression? Or is Al Queda satisfied?
Hitler didn't commit aggressions to rectify the wrongs of the League of Nations. Al Queda doesn't commit aggressions to free Iraq. Hitler wanted to rule the world. Al Queda wants to rule the world.
In both situations, previous behavior indicated to thoughtful observers that the perpetrators could not be appeased. In fact, thoughtful people realized that the aggressions should be met with the force requisite to destroying the evil regimes, or at least detering further aggression. I think the analogy holds up well. Why is that either reactionary or sensationalistic? 'Splain, please, my friend.
Definition of nimrod:
1. also Nimrod A hunter.
2. Informal. A person regarded as silly, foolish, or stupid.
Well, the Propaganda Minister is correct in that, by the standard of the first definition, calling the Spanish hunters is grossly inappropriate.
But if we use the second definition, the Spanish public's decision to elect a leader who says that they become isolationist in the face of terror, even if they supported him to punish the prevarications of the former government, is, silly, foolish, and stupid.
Both the Minister of Propagands and the Maximum Leader were part of my wedding party. If any readers are interested in a picture of the two of them cavorting on a couch wearing only tuxedo tops and boxer shorts, send an e-mail request to smallholder@nakedvillainy.com
In his latest blog entry (how many fan mails will he get this time?), the Minister of Propaganda writes:
On the same point, I obviously wasn't clear when I complained about the general tone of discussion on the blog concerning the Spanish election. I think all of the 1938 comparisons amount to reactionary sensationalism, but it was specifically the Minister of Agriculture who called the Spanish 'nimrods,' which I found grossly inappropriate. Leave the hyperbole aside: its' ridiculous to equate a shift of parliamentary control in the Spanish government (some 150 seats for the Socialists vs. some 140 seats for the conservatives, neither party with a controlling majority) to the appeasement of Hitler. If the U.S. suffers another major attack before November, should all good patriots (of which I consider myself one) fall in behind Bush because it's important we not give the perception of changing course? Absurd.
Well, lets see:
Previous Hitler aggressions --> Hitler's claims on the Sudetenland --> Munich Appeasement --> Further aggression.
Previous al Queda atrocities --> Al Queda's attack on Spain --> Spanish withdrawal from Iraq --> Further aggression? Or is Al Queda satisfied?
Hitler didn't commit aggressions to rectify the wrongs of the League of Nations. Al Queda doesn't commit aggressions to free Iraq. Hitler wanted to rule the world. Al Queda wants to rule the world.
In both situations, previous behavior indicated to thoughtful observers that the perpetrators could not be appeased. In fact, thoughtful people realized that the aggressions should be met with the force requisite to destroying the evil regimes, or at least detering further aggression. I think the analogy holds up well. Why is that either reactionary or sensationalistic? 'Splain, please, my friend.
Definition of nimrod:
1. also Nimrod A hunter.
2. Informal. A person regarded as silly, foolish, or stupid.
Well, the Propaganda Minister is correct in that, by the standard of the first definition, calling the Spanish hunters is grossly inappropriate.
But if we use the second definition, the Spanish public's decision to elect a leader who says that they become isolationist in the face of terror, even if they supported him to punish the prevarications of the former government, is, silly, foolish, and stupid.
posted by Anonymous at 3/22/2004 06:12:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home