·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Salute America's Heroes, support Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Global Warming theory, oppose Al Gore, support milblogs,
support Michael Yon, support Pat Dollard, support BlackFive, support MilBlogs, support MilBlogging,
support Mudville Gazette, support HotAir.Com, support JawaReport, support PajamasMedia, support VictoryCaucus,
support VetsForFreedom, support FreedomsWatch, support DayByDayCartoon, support Foundation for the Defense of Democracy,
support polisatDOTcom video, Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos,
oppose ANSWER, support http://PoliSat.Com, support http://WrennCom.Com, oppose Clinton Library, support Clinton Liebrary,
support http://ClintonLiebrary.Com, support http://ClintonLiebraryBook.Com, support ICANN, oppose terrorism, oppose jihadists,
oppose energyandcapital.com, oppose justforeignpolicy.org .
September 25, 2007--
Novelist John Grisham exposes hatred for George Bush matched in intensity only by his
fawning adulation of Bill and Hillary
What does Grisham prove by his
characterization of the Bush administration as "bad men with evil intent"? More about himself than about
disagreement with the political judgment of a politician is a time-honored and valued American freedom. Expressing vitriolic hatred is not. Especially vitriolic hatred at a President at a time of war. A recent newspaper interview of novelist John Grisham quotes him at length on his political views.
After gushingly conceding himself to be a great admirer and supporter of (and campaigner for) Bill and Hillary Clinton, Grisham characterizes the war in Iraq as "an immoral abomination" and characterizes Bush and his administration as "bad people with evil intent." This is the kind of juvenile, narcissistic moralizing one has come to expect from the vast majority of "celebrities."
It's not that expressions of vitriolic hatred for opponents as a form of narcissistic self-love are new; they're not. What's new is the extent to which too many Americans tolerate, rather than shun, such behavior. Indeed, many laud it while simultaneously condemning condemnation of it as an attack on the "patriotism" its practitoners. Unwittingly exemplifying this latter tendency on Hardball (September 21, 2007), Charles Cook characterized as "smears" the "right's" justifiably caustic criticisms of MoveOn.Org's patently hateful defamation of
Petraeus. Welcome to Animal Farm. CookSpeak. HardballSpeak. LeftSpeak.
Ignorance is strength. Freedom is oppression. Sacrifice is selfishness. Describing idealogues' attacks on the patriotism of an honorable general at a
time of war as being "attacks on his patriotism" is an "attack on the patriotism" of the attackers of the general.
Hypocrisy is piety. Piety is apostasy. Contradictions are congruent. Circularity is linear.
Hardball is Fardball for the Left.
Most decent, ordinary Americans seem utterly clueless about the baseness and venality of the motives that evoke such hateful expressions of political "views."
Probably few readers of Grisham's novels will ferret-out news reports about his self-loving hatred of Bush, so most of them will probably continue funding his hateful nonsense by buying even more of his books.
Sad. Help Fund Fawning Adulation of Bill and Hillary and Hatred of Bush: Buy
When will Americans cease viewing celebrities as though they were royalty or intellectual giants and begin viewing most of them as the self-absorbed, spoiled children most of them are? Before America lost its common-sense/common-decency center of gravity, most Americans would have shunned any celebrity spewing such hateful views.
Of course, those self-centered celebrities are so intellectually shallow that they view anyone suggesting that ordinary people ought not patronize their work in order to avoid subsidizing their hateful rhetoric as being "fascist."
and other celebrities of his ilk, apparently can't emotionally or intellectually grasp the
difference between vicious smearing on the one hand and sharp dissent on the other-- i.e.,
the difference between saying "Bush has made colossal and disastrous mistakes by (or in)
toppling Saddam" on the one hand and saying Bush and his team are "bad men with evil
intent." It's not just juvenile, high-school-clique-ish, narcissistic posturing to pander
to, and be deemed "cool" by, those inside their clique, it's the malicious smearing
of those outside the "cool" clique. They dish-out offensive rhetoric, and, when
someone correctly describes their rhetoric as "malicious," they squeal like stuck
pigs. Such narcissistic childishness.
If John Grisham is proof of anything, it's that extensive reading and extensive writing does not always improve the
mind or guarantee intellectual maturity beyond adolescence.
--Jim Wrenn, Editor at WrennCom.Com and Editor at PoliSat.Com.