![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
when editorial writer brains explode
Feb. 7th, 2007 06:57 pmBeen wondering how the Howard Fan Club that run the Australian newspaper would handle Howard's collapse in the polls?
Based on this editorial, they've suffered a complete mental breakdown. It's hard to actually figure out exactly what they're arguing through the layers of crap and nonsense, but I think the relevant claims are:
Seriously, I can't figure out what the fuck this piece is trying to say. That gosh, actually being proud of Australia is good? No shit, sherlock. That somehow only people not of "the Left" are proud of Australia? Bollocks. That "tolerance" caused Cronulla? What the fuck?
And finally, note that when they quote Daniel Pipes talking about Muslims in any way whatsoever, you should take the "facts" provided with a gigantic arseload of salt. Wikipedia has a collection of some of his greatest hits. (Note also that they're quoting as an informed source, in a piece accusing the Left of being Saddam-snugglers, someone who actually was a Saddam-snuggler. Ponder that delicious delicious irony. Feel it melt on your tongue, releasing all the tasty goodness inside.)
It's pretty sad when "As a fully qualified novelist, I resent those stupid churches attempting to say what Jesus would or would not believe" is not the stupidest thing on your editorial page. (This latter one is a piece that is almost fractally silly - the closer you look, the more silliness you see)
Based on this editorial, they've suffered a complete mental breakdown. It's hard to actually figure out exactly what they're arguing through the layers of crap and nonsense, but I think the relevant claims are:
- progressives are responsible for the Cronulla riots, somehow (and I thought it was a bunch of nongs, egged on by scumbags like Alan Jones)
- cheap, grandstanding displays of nationalism are good. (paging Jackie Kelly - your endorsement opportunities await) - indeed far better than actual, complicated thinking.
- "the Left" (hearts) Saddam (damn you Chomsky, for supporting him all those years! no... wait.)
- "the Left" supports all atrocities, so long as they're not by the US - even those of "the Right". (Er. Show your working, please. Or even examples. Note that citing Socialist Alternative, Green Left Weekly or the like as "the Left" is not sufficient)
- therefore, multiculturalism and tolerance are bad
Seriously, I can't figure out what the fuck this piece is trying to say. That gosh, actually being proud of Australia is good? No shit, sherlock. That somehow only people not of "the Left" are proud of Australia? Bollocks. That "tolerance" caused Cronulla? What the fuck?
And finally, note that when they quote Daniel Pipes talking about Muslims in any way whatsoever, you should take the "facts" provided with a gigantic arseload of salt. Wikipedia has a collection of some of his greatest hits. (Note also that they're quoting as an informed source, in a piece accusing the Left of being Saddam-snugglers, someone who actually was a Saddam-snuggler. Ponder that delicious delicious irony. Feel it melt on your tongue, releasing all the tasty goodness inside.)
It's pretty sad when "As a fully qualified novelist, I resent those stupid churches attempting to say what Jesus would or would not believe" is not the stupidest thing on your editorial page. (This latter one is a piece that is almost fractally silly - the closer you look, the more silliness you see)
