Those dastardly Clintonites….

Funny, but Front Page didn’t complain about the eliminationist rhetoric of Sean Hannity, Ann Coutler, Mike Savage and Rush Limbaugh.

Oh well, I guess it’s because Sean, Ann et al don’t get anywhere near the US media coverage that the Guardian listings do.

observer,
Granted I’ve only listened to 3 of the 4 you mention, and while I think they are over the top in their rhetoric, I find it extremely hard to believe they’ve ever used “eliminationist rhetoric”.

Maybe FrontPage’s rhetoric was over the top, but given what was said, is that so bad? Shouldn’t their be overwhelming revulsion to any call for violence against Democracy?

There can be no natural rights without the rule of law, and people who place partisanship above law are the their own worst enemy.

How come when some left wing newspaper calls for President Bush’s head, the US media explodes in indignation, but when US right wingers call for President Clinton’s head in an identical fashion, that gets called “humor” or “fraternity hazing?”

Has the word HYPOCRISY been deleted from the dictionary this past week?

Ann coulter? This bimbo talks like she has any concept of war. It probably gets her off to talk like that. Rather than invading and killing people how about we just arrest these talking heads under some law or other, then put them in jump suits and let them spend a few months at GITMO, just to give them a taste of their world.

Ann Coulter’s “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton” featured the memorable line “The only question is do we assassinate Clinton or impeach him?”

Don’t recall too much outrage about that, and it was significantly higher profile…

Ho-hum. Can’t expect too much rationality. Everyone’s all het up at the moment.

Don Quijote,
Are you argueing that because Ann Coulter has an extreme view on how to prosecute the war, that is the same as a British writer calling for the assassination of Bush. They are nothing alike. And on Sept 13, 2001 (when that piece was written), I was probably saying the same crazy shit she was. And except for converting them to Christianity, the US did exactly what she said, so apparently she isn’t that crazy after all, just a bigoted zealot. But if she were calling for the assassination of Chirac, then we would have some real similararities.

On the other hand, if what is meant by “eliminationist rhetoric” is advocation of killing regardless of context or reason, then I guess Front Page is picking and chosing who to get outraged about. But that would certainly be a pacifist point of view, and if we are going to talk about pacifist, maybe we should discuss Tiebet and how that whole non-violence thing worked out for them. Aren’t the Chinese still putting nuns in prison for 25 years for praying in public and running slave labor camps?

“Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He better have a bodyguard.”

Senator Jesse Helms, Nov. 1994

I think this is a combination of crazy right wing knee jerking and election year everything but the kitchen sink rhetoric.

Too bad their isn’t a mechanism in society to punish propoganda. I don’t mean legally, just societally. As it stands now, anyone can say anything, and if they are on “your” side, they are cheered on no matter how outlandish.

This is just bloody stupid.

As ginger yellow says, Brooker’s whole schtick is to write very nasty and sometimes very funny stuff in which, among other things, he calls for absurdly over-the-top punishment and/or violent death for people who offend him — the humour is in precisely in the absurd over-reaction and even more in the fact that what usually gets him offended is some incredibly trivial TV commercial, Hoxton-fin haircuts, etc.

There’s just something deeply wrong when so many people seem to be unable to tell the difference between someone whose stock in trade is satirically offensive TV listings, for feck’s sake, and a serious commentator.

Brooker has written stuff that potentially offends everyone of more or less any political persuasion and his targets (in the infamous Brasseye paedophile episode, for example) are just as likely to be the lefty ‘liberal’ middle classes as anyone else.

The one good thing about this flap, apart of course from further confirming my prejudices about the cluelessness of Bush supporting rightwingers, is that it’s inspired me to revisit TVGoHome. I’ve hardly done any work all afternoon.

“when US right wingers call for President Clinton’s head in an identical fashion, that gets called “humor” or “fraternity hazing?””

Which popular US newspaper printed something suggesting that it would be appropriate to assassinate President Clinton? When did Rush call for a Clinton assassination? When did Hannity suggest such a thing would be a good idea?

This wasn’t published just anywhere, it was in the Guardian.

You also fail to note that Coulter was fired from the National Review over the language you quote and her response to them for refusing to print it. Should we fail to expect the same level of responsibility from the Guardian?

“This wasn’t published just anywhere, it was in the Guardian.”

In the TV reviews column, written by a comedian who has previously talked about the upsides to dirty bombs going off in London. How bad must your persecution complex be for you to take this seriously?

The Left plays “politics by other means?”

Only if you ignore the swing-state Republican efforts to disrupt voting and contest any result they don’t like next week.

None of these Republican jackasses apologize for their insidious characterizations of liberals. So fuck’em. No apologies.

It baffles me how Sebastian seamlessly mixes thoughtful comments on some threads with mindless hackery like this on others.

Ann Coulter may have lost one (1) gig as a result of the quote about genocide, but she continues to appear on countless TV shows, as well as to publish widely-distributed (if not -purchased) books. She has in no way been marginalized. Furthermore, she plainly did discuss the assassination of Clinton in ironic, but far from satiric, terms. Yet Seb pretends that this simply didn’t happen.

Furthermore, here is what Rush has said about 30-50% of Americans:

“We don’t want to get rid of all liberals. I want to keep a couple, for example, on every major U.S. college campus so that we never forget who these people are.”

This is elminationist rhetoric, loud and clear. There is no hedging, no satire. Rush, of course, would insist that it’s a joke, but I’d like someone to explain the punchline in this statement. “never forget” – think about the implication of that. This is a man who is welcomed to the White House, on NBC, and who speaks to tens of millions every week, including our military overseas.

As for Hannity and Savage, their very book titles equate liberals and Democrats with America’s enemies. Not Republicans’, but Americans’. Think about this. Or are you too desperate to score partisan points off of some yahoo satirist to see how far your side is willing to take things.

Well, we know one thing about you, Sebastian. If the trains start rolling, you won’t raise your head, except perhaps to point out some neighbor who has questioned the dominant order.

What goes around comes around: there has been so much ‘tough talk’ and specifically about killing various people during the last 3 years that, I guess, it’s become acceptable. If the paltry Gulf I war produced McVeigh, I wonder what kind of ugliness this one will create.

Can we all agree that Rush, Hannity, and Coulter are hateful idiots? Good. So stipulated.

Now let’s quit with the diversions.

If on the same page, in the same font, the message had not been “killing George Bush is kinda funny and a good thing” but something like “God I hate dirty niggers,” then everyone who is DEFENDING the “joke” would be up in arms, and vice-versa. It’s all about whose ox is getting gored.

If on the same page, in the same font, the message had not been “killing George Bush is kinda funny and a good thing” but something like “God I hate dirty niggers,”

Brooker’s done this one, way before you.

BTW, isn’t it just a little weird that you try to defend Brooker by comparing him to people that you think should be driven away from having a public voice?

I would never try to defend a conservative by saying that he says things that are as crazy as Chomsky.

The joke doesn’t play well in the United States. Especially from a foreign source. If it had been an American paper, possibly. Apparently the idea of being sensitive to other cultures does not apply to the United States. At least Charlie Brooker had the good sense to apologize.

Yeah, Sebastian. When I grow up, I want to be smart like you.

Ann Coulter’s being fired from a job seems like a very major consequence for saying something stupid. But apparently she should have been beaten by her husband, or stoned to death, because getting canned isn’t a big enough “desert” for her.

“Pox on all” makes a good point too. You can’t defend one person by claiming another person’s identical dreadful actions went unpunished (and don’t claim satire, cause last I checked blackface was still incredibely offensive). Or did two wrongs start making a right? I always did forget when to find the integral of a right and derivative of a wrong.

“And hell, I’m not even asking that he be fired. I would love a mere acknowledgement that he crossed the line and that the comment should never have been published in the Guardian. ”

Well you’re not going to get it from me. Brooker “crosses the line” every single time he puts pen to paper. That, for the umpteenth time, is the whole point. As I said before, take a look at TVGoHome. Just to take a random sample, the last listing he published has a programme called “It Shouldn’t Happen To A… Blameless Child”. The most commonly featured programme on TVGoHome is called C*nt (which by the way is being made into a real programme with Chris Morris).

“If on the same page, in the same font, the message had not been “killing George Bush is kinda funny and a good thing” but something like “God I hate dirty niggers,” then everyone who is DEFENDING the “joke” would be up in arms, and vice-versa. It’s all about whose ox is getting gored.”

As dsquared says, Brooker is way ahead of you. I thought, having been through the whole South Park controversy years ago, US readers might be familiar with the concept of offending everyone. Clearly I was wrong.

Mona, I always thought satire had to be funny. But then maybe I’m not clever enough to understand just how risible is an invocation of the three most notorious assassins in American history. What exactly is Brooker satirizing, anyway? Bush-hating leftists?

I await the reaction of everybody in this comments section upon the first similar statement made by a conservative wacko in the event of a Kerry presidency. I hope you all take it with the same large-hearted spirit that you’ve taken Brooker’s “jest.”

Mona, I always thought satire had to be funny. But then maybe I’m not clever enough to understand just how risible is an invocation of the three most notorious assassins in American history. Ah, I see it now — whoo-hoo, my sides are splitting! What exactly is Brooker satirizing, anyway? Bush-hating leftists?

I await the reaction of everybody in this comments section upon the first similar statement made by a conservative wacko in the event of a Kerry presidency. I hope you all take it with the same large-hearted spirit that you’ve taken Brooker’s “jest.”

Yeah, satire is supposed to be funny. But not everyone agrees on what’s funny. Not everyone agrees on what’s satire.

See the huge complaints about the programme simstin mentioned in the first comment on this thread.

This column was actually very restrained by comparison, and rather lazy, nothing particular original about describing Bush as mad or about that last infamous line. But the reactions to it have made the point far better than the column itself. That there’s people who claim it was a genuine call for assassination is something no parody could have achieved.

If it had been some conservative wacko saying the same about Kerry, I imagine the reactions would also depend similarly on whether it was meant as obvious joke or earnest opinion, and whether that wacko was a comedian, or a political commentator. Howard Stern, or a major newspaper columnist – I think you’ll agree that changes the context a bit. Likewise, if what Brooker wrote had been written by the Guardian editor in a serious opinion piece.

Thickness strikes in bipartisan fashion, so maybe you’d have gotten the very same reactions had this been Stern and Kerry. But unfortunately there seem to be more conservative wackos who say deeply offensive and tasteless stuff in earnest than tasteless comedians who say tasteless things in obvious sarcastic mode, whatever the target. The two things cannot be compared, but the reactions can indeed. Interestingly, the former don’t seem to trouble the delicate tastes of the conservative American public that much.