RSS
A Not So Modest Proposal
My print column on about how to "atone" for our torturing al Qaida terrorists is up.
According to one Inky columnist, if you celebrated Independence Day you're an immoral "coward."
UPDATE: In a folo-up yesterday, the columnist and former editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial page, Chris Satullo, had more to say. Specifically, that he had engaged in "hyperbole," that the storm troopers of Rush Limbaugh's Internet Army had written him nasty e-mails and some people even had the gall to question his "patriotism."
"...(Go) ahead, knock my logic or prose style. They're fair game. Scorn the shape of my nose, my manliness, and all the other stuff my kind correspondents attacked. But do not, do not, question my patriotism. Or that of any fellow citizen. Such words are unworthy of what we owe one another as Americans."
Funny, how liberals get so upset when someone questions their patriotism, even if it is someone they consider a complete idiot.
For the record, I did not make fun of his prose style (which was pretty bad, but you be the judge), his manliness, or the shape of his nose. I did make fun of his suggestion that 300 million Americans don't deserve to celebrate the Fourth this year because a handful of terrorists were roughly treated.
Now, he says he was merely being hyperbolic when he wrote:
"Don't imagine that only the torturer's hand bears the guilt. The guilt reaches deep inside our Capitol, and beyond that - to us. Our silence is complicit. In our name, innocents were jailed, humans tortured, our Constitution mangled. And we said so little. We can't claim not to have known. The best among us raised the alarm. Heroes in uniform, judges in robes, they opposed the perverse logic of an administration drenched in fear, drunk on power."
Such over-the-top writing tempts one to question whether Satullo actually meant what he said or if he was playing the satirist, mocking liberals for their unctous, self-righteous moralizing. But no, it's clear that he wasn't.
Satullo accuses his fellow Americans of being complicit in war crimes and atrocities and undeserving of celebrating their heritage and that's OK because he does so with "an earnest purpose."
Does he think the people who responded harshly to him and to his column don't have an earnest purpose?
This sounds like a case of -- hyperbole for me but not for thee.
But the worst thing about Satullo's reponse to his critics is not his hypocrisy but his mawkish self-regarding "misty-eyed" idealism.
"For the record, I love the United States of America. Always have, always will. I thank God for letting me be born here. I am a misty-eyed idealist about the Declaration, the Constitution and the Founders."
And so don't anyone, ever, question HIS patriotism!
His critics might respond, "Hey, this is America, where the Founders provided us with a First Amendment, so we can if we want to."
What's Satullo going to do about it? Challenge them to a duel?
I hope Chris doesn't think that by comparing him to the Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright that I was questioning his love of America. What I was questioning was his judgement, his taste, and his senses.
His original piece suggested he had taken leave of them. His second suggested something more calculated: that he'd attempted to be provoke an angry response and gotten one.
But he ruined it with his "do not, do not..." umbrage.
Chris should remember, sticks and stone, sticks and stones...
UPDATE: In his second piece, Satullo refers to the first as being an example of his "Swiftian panache," and that was somehow missed by the Dittoheads who condemned it. As I recall when Jonathan Swift wrote his "A Modest Proposal" he didn't actually mean that his fellow Britishers should eat the babies of the poor. I don't suppose, Satullo was kidding when he suggested "We" Americans should be ashamed of ourselves for spitting in the faces of our country's founders. That he would suggest as much in his second piece is weak and cynical beyond belief.
If he'd really have wanted to be clever and satirical he would have headlined his column: "Porn On the Fourth of July."
According to one Inky columnist, if you celebrated Independence Day you're an immoral "coward."
UPDATE: In a folo-up yesterday, the columnist and former editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial page, Chris Satullo, had more to say. Specifically, that he had engaged in "hyperbole," that the storm troopers of Rush Limbaugh's Internet Army had written him nasty e-mails and some people even had the gall to question his "patriotism."
"...(Go) ahead, knock my logic or prose style. They're fair game. Scorn the shape of my nose, my manliness, and all the other stuff my kind correspondents attacked. But do not, do not, question my patriotism. Or that of any fellow citizen. Such words are unworthy of what we owe one another as Americans."
Funny, how liberals get so upset when someone questions their patriotism, even if it is someone they consider a complete idiot.
For the record, I did not make fun of his prose style (which was pretty bad, but you be the judge), his manliness, or the shape of his nose. I did make fun of his suggestion that 300 million Americans don't deserve to celebrate the Fourth this year because a handful of terrorists were roughly treated.
Now, he says he was merely being hyperbolic when he wrote:
"Don't imagine that only the torturer's hand bears the guilt. The guilt reaches deep inside our Capitol, and beyond that - to us. Our silence is complicit. In our name, innocents were jailed, humans tortured, our Constitution mangled. And we said so little. We can't claim not to have known. The best among us raised the alarm. Heroes in uniform, judges in robes, they opposed the perverse logic of an administration drenched in fear, drunk on power."
Such over-the-top writing tempts one to question whether Satullo actually meant what he said or if he was playing the satirist, mocking liberals for their unctous, self-righteous moralizing. But no, it's clear that he wasn't.
Satullo accuses his fellow Americans of being complicit in war crimes and atrocities and undeserving of celebrating their heritage and that's OK because he does so with "an earnest purpose."
Does he think the people who responded harshly to him and to his column don't have an earnest purpose?
This sounds like a case of -- hyperbole for me but not for thee.
But the worst thing about Satullo's reponse to his critics is not his hypocrisy but his mawkish self-regarding "misty-eyed" idealism.
"For the record, I love the United States of America. Always have, always will. I thank God for letting me be born here. I am a misty-eyed idealist about the Declaration, the Constitution and the Founders."
And so don't anyone, ever, question HIS patriotism!
His critics might respond, "Hey, this is America, where the Founders provided us with a First Amendment, so we can if we want to."
What's Satullo going to do about it? Challenge them to a duel?
I hope Chris doesn't think that by comparing him to the Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright that I was questioning his love of America. What I was questioning was his judgement, his taste, and his senses.
His original piece suggested he had taken leave of them. His second suggested something more calculated: that he'd attempted to be provoke an angry response and gotten one.
But he ruined it with his "do not, do not..." umbrage.
Chris should remember, sticks and stone, sticks and stones...
UPDATE: In his second piece, Satullo refers to the first as being an example of his "Swiftian panache," and that was somehow missed by the Dittoheads who condemned it. As I recall when Jonathan Swift wrote his "A Modest Proposal" he didn't actually mean that his fellow Britishers should eat the babies of the poor. I don't suppose, Satullo was kidding when he suggested "We" Americans should be ashamed of ourselves for spitting in the faces of our country's founders. That he would suggest as much in his second piece is weak and cynical beyond belief.
If he'd really have wanted to be clever and satirical he would have headlined his column: "Porn On the Fourth of July."
posted by Spencerblog at
9:55 AM
7 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
That's not even a nice try. It's weak.
Instead of illogically misstating my argument. Why not defend Satullo's? What did you do to celebrate the Fourth? I hope you took Chris' advice and humbly atoned for America's sins. Somehow, I doubt that's what you did.
what a terrible example diano, care to try for a second? Do you want to insert a Hitler reference this time?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Actually, I was the one who brought up the slavery analogy in my criticism of Satullo's piece.
You seem confused. You may recall we fought a great Civil War in this country, in part, to end slavery. More than 300,000 Americans died in it.
It was seen through to its completion by a president who suspended habeus corpus and allowed atrocities like Andersonville and the burning of Atlanta. Union soldiers committed rapes and pillaged southern cities and towns.
And yet, today Abraham Lincoln is considered a hero. Why?
The man who bravely sneaked up behind him and put a bullet in his brain, declared him a "tyrant." Was John Wilkes Booth right?
Lincoln did, after all, mangle the Constitution for the cause of saving the Union. Applying the same standards you and Satullo apply to Bush, Lincoln was a war criminal and constitution-hating dictator.
But then he was a Republican, wasn't he?
It was seen through to its completion by a president who suspended habeus corpus and allowed atrocities
LOL! Dave smackdown!
Dave loves to grasp (and fail) at drawing racial comparisons to everything.
Libs are just full of all kinds of guilt. Why do they always insist on sharing their shameful feelings with others? They should keep it to themselves. Such secondhand Libism is a public health hazard.
Am I the only one who sees what this guy is about? … This Radical Lib idiot columnist used to be an editor (!) for a large American newspaper. Now that he is a columnist his views are exposed and he has to sign his name to his Radical Lib views rather than hiding behind the “Editorial” moniker. Even if not devious, how could such a someone’s extreme views not imfluence the way they perform their job? (Kinda like how newpapers would be if Dishonest Dave Diano were in charge.) And then these same Libs turn around and expect us to accept the “news” they present us as unbiased.
It would be funny is it weren’t so despicable in its dishonesty.
Funny, how liberals get so upset when someone questions their patriotism
Yeah, not really so “funny”…
Lib: “Down with America! Hooray for our enemies! The President of the United States is a terrorist!”
Rightie: “You’re a traitor.”
L: “How dare you question my patriotism?! You are the traitor!”
R: “Where’s your Flag lapel pin?”
L: “I don’t need some silly pin to show my patriotism! How dare you ask?!”
R: “Sure, a pin itself is kind of silly. But it becomes a very real issue when you’re the ONLY ONE NOT WEARING ONE because you REFUSE to. And what about you’re refusing to salute the Flag during the Pledge?”
L: “I didn’t want to appear to be taking sides. Some people have issues with America.” (This is a real quote, btw.)
R: “Taking sides??! You’re running to be POTUS for cryin out loud! You’re supposed to take sides! America’s side! And what about all the disturbing things your wife and pastor and your other America-hating friends have said?”
L: “They were taken out of context. All those things mean nothing anyway. So long as I say I am patriotic then you must believe me, or you are the traitor!”
R: “Uh, ok…”
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home