Friday, April 29, 2005

The oozing, pustulent sack of hypocrisy that is Weasel Boy.

Dear Readers:

I know you mean well, so I'm always a good sport when one of you, on occasion, sends me a private e-mail asking something like, "Have you seen the incredibly stupid thing Weasel Boy posted this week?" Most of the time, probably not, since I try to associate with assholes as little as possible, either directly or by phosphor. But, yes, I will give my latest correspondent this -- WB's latest piece really is an eye-opening piece of ignorant, hate-filled swill.

Over here, WB sympathizes with cut-rate, Ann Coulter-wanna be and right-wing screech harpy Laura Ingraham, whose integrity (or, more appropriately, total lack of it) is more than adequately documented in many places, such as here.

Apparently, Ingraham was recently diagnosed with breast cancer, and Weasel Boy is shocked -- shocked and appalled, I say -- at the overwhelming lack of sympathy from the left for Ingraham. Some of the vitriol is, as WB points out, downright nasty:

I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum

They have caused too much pain to others.

On the other hand, perhaps I will do a bit of praying.

Yes, that she share, appropriately, the wing of Hell populated by Hitler's lower managmement, radio personalities, and writers from the Ministry of Propaganda.

Which is where her soul belongs in the Afterlife.

Excuse me, I have some praying to do.

There's more (as you can see for yourself), which naturally allows WB to imply that the right is composed only of compassionate, caring altruists, while the left are a bunch of intolerant, hate-filled bigots. Fancy that -- the thought that, after years of Ingraham being an ignorant, pathological liar and mouthpiece, there are some on the left who just don't give a shit what happens to her. Hard to believe, isn't it? Who'd a thunk it?

And, of course, if you read only Weasel Boy (and God help you if that's true), you'd never think that those on the right could be equally capable of such contempt. You'd never imagine, after the death by car bomb of peace activist Marla Ruzicka, that anyone in the right-wing wankerverse could write a hate-filled screed like, say, this one, with such tasty excerpts as:

"... Marla Ruzicka’s sole purpose is to legitimize our enemies, cause problems for U.S. troops already in harm's way, and morally equate dead terrorists with victims of 9/11... She formed the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), the goal of which was anything but CIVIC during the War on Terror or ever. Ruzicka’s aim was to force the U.S. government to get an “accurate” count of “innocent civilian” deaths by U.S. troops and blackmail America into paying monetary settlements for each death... Ruzicka went to Iraq as an activist for Code Pink, which is more aptly titled “Code Pinko” by writer Jean Pearce. Code Pink is an assortment of neo-Commie America-haters who love Fidel Castro (and Cuba under him) and Marxist Sandinista thugs (thankfully, long ago deposed) and have ties to environmental terrorist groups (Animal Liberation Front and Environmental Liberation Front ..."

and other tasty descriptions. And there's the absolutely delicious finishing touch on that article:

While it’s a sad day when any American gets killed by Islamic terrorists, it’s measurably less sad when that American aided and abetted them—and belittled our troops.

For Marla Ruzicka, some might call it, poetic justice.

Yeah, let's face it -- that bitch got what was coming to her. No more, no less. But, gosh, isn't it odd how Weasel Boy manages to miss this when he's talking about ideological intolerance?

Of course, we might just give WB the benefit of the doubt and assume he was saving this stuff for Part 2. Just to be fair and balanced, of course. 'Cuz if he wasn't, well, that would mean he was just a festering sack of conservative hypocrisy and dishonesty. So I'm sure this is all a misunderstanding and we can all look forward to the Weasel's fair and balanced followup.

After all, it would just be the right thing to do, wouldn't it?

UPDATE: And, needless to say, there are others who write about this far better than I do. Like here. Jesus, how is it that, when you figure you've reached the absolute bottom of the barrel in terms of human degradation and intolerance, you find David Horowitz's face staring up at you? It's just plain creepy.

: Justin Raimondo adds his two cents here. And Roxanne over here. And Steve M. over here.


PR said...

"...there are some on the left who just don't give a shit what happens to her."

This view of yours, as reprehensible as it is, is not equivalent to this:

"I Hope She Goes Into Remission and ****ing chokes to death."

I see that honesty is not a cherished value among you or people like yourself.

CC said...

"peter rempel said"

Oh, crap ... who left the door open to Peter's room? Here we go ...

"This view of yours, as reprehensible as it is, ..."

Um ... "view"? You make it sound like this is an opinion or something. Apparently, you missed the part where I was pointing out the overwhelming evidence of hypocrisy from the right when they also demonstrate a callous disregard or outright hatred for people with a different ideology.

Here in the reality-based community, Pete, we call that an "observation". Or, for the conservative hard-of-thinking, a "fact". When exactly did pointing out facts become "reprehensible" in the right-wing wankerverse? Methinks you've been watching way too many Stephen Harper press conferences. You should try to get out more often. Maybe watch a little CBC for balance or something.

"... is not equivalent to this: ...

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a pissing contest to see which side could be more shallow, unfeeling and hateful. In that case, let me steal shamelessly from Kate over at SmallDeadAnimals -- one of your ideological bunkmates since you have her on your blogroll -- where she writes, of the Marburg epidemic in Angola,:

"If help is something they will not accept, if they threaten the safety of medical staff - the only other solution is to close the borders and let nature take its course. Some will survive, some will not. Perhaps nature will also knock some sense into them."

And isn't your buddy Kate just the compassionate conservative? So ... let's compare, shall we? You bring up an example of a single, bitter, spiteful left winger, who wishes all sorts of nastiness on Laura Ingraham, a woman who has made an entire career out of insulting and demeaning everyone left of center, a woman who is a despicable, pathological liar.

Your good friend Kate, on the other hand, off-handedly suggests quarantining and perhaps condemning to suffering and death an entire country, whose citizens have never done her any harm personally, and whose major sin seems to be that they're too impoverished to look after themselves.

Sure, Pete. I can play this game.

"I see that honesty is not a cherished value among you or people like yourself."

People like myself? Gosh, Pete ... over-generalize much?

CC said...

By the way, Pete, in terms of this pissing contest we got going on here, let me see your bitter, "reprehensible" left winger, and raise you a whole bunch of conservative homophobes:

"Opposite [Rev.] White's group will be a handful of demonstrators from Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church, whose members conduct frequent pickets carrying signs such as "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Aids."

Thank God for AIDS, eh? Well, at least we can see where your friend Kate gets her moral compass.