Thursday, May 12, 2005
Medi-evil Times
George Galloway is currently the worst person in the world. I realize that's quite a claim, given the availability of popular choices like Robert Mugabe, "L'il Kim" Jong Il, Osama in Hidin', Linkin Park, Tom DeLay, and the guy who stabbed his daughter in the eyes for breaking curfew. But those people, with the possible exception of Tom DeLay, either live in an alternate universe of truth or are just screwed in the head. If you're a third-world dictator, admitted murderer or a talentless and unimaginatively derivative rock band, you're expected to be scum. Only Galloway and DeLay really have any expectations to meet.
So why is the rabble-rouser of the Left worse than the Hammer of the Right?
a) Hypocrisy raises your scumbag quotient exponentially. DeLay, for his many flaws, does not pretend to be a champion of the poor and unwashed. He defends the rights of the wealthy, privileged and Christian in a way that is as brazen as it is frank. Granted, there is the inherent discord between being a disciple of Jesus and having a motto that can be best described as "Fuck The Poor", but it is not as egregious as supporting mass murderers and an insurgency against your own soldiers in the name of "peace" and "human rights".
b) Cynical manipulation also gets you extra dickhead points. While I don't know the man, I am fairly confident that Tom DeLay really does believe in trickle-down economics, the moral validity of applying the death penalty to juveniles, and that the Republicans are doing God's work on earth. Galloway, on the other hand, does not believe a word he is saying. He lives in the modern era, he watches western news broadcasts, and he presumably knows the basics of Europeam history. Galloway does not actually believe that Fallujah is Guernica. Nor does he believe that there is a hell, or that Bush and Blair are going there, while Saddam is not. He knows that the cause of humanity and freedom is not being served by the insurgents he praises so lavishly. He says these things purely for political reasons, or perhaps for personal gain. Galloway saw an opening for a rabid anti-war demagogue, and he ran with it, straight out of labor and into the one constituency that would make him a local hero.
There is nothing about Galloway that is decent or good. Unlike other odious politicians, he survives only as a channel for hate, with no constructive balance. He dishonors every ideal he cynically exploits, and makes a mockery of those who naively follow him in the name of those ideals.
Basically, he's a putz.
So why is the rabble-rouser of the Left worse than the Hammer of the Right?
a) Hypocrisy raises your scumbag quotient exponentially. DeLay, for his many flaws, does not pretend to be a champion of the poor and unwashed. He defends the rights of the wealthy, privileged and Christian in a way that is as brazen as it is frank. Granted, there is the inherent discord between being a disciple of Jesus and having a motto that can be best described as "Fuck The Poor", but it is not as egregious as supporting mass murderers and an insurgency against your own soldiers in the name of "peace" and "human rights".
b) Cynical manipulation also gets you extra dickhead points. While I don't know the man, I am fairly confident that Tom DeLay really does believe in trickle-down economics, the moral validity of applying the death penalty to juveniles, and that the Republicans are doing God's work on earth. Galloway, on the other hand, does not believe a word he is saying. He lives in the modern era, he watches western news broadcasts, and he presumably knows the basics of Europeam history. Galloway does not actually believe that Fallujah is Guernica. Nor does he believe that there is a hell, or that Bush and Blair are going there, while Saddam is not. He knows that the cause of humanity and freedom is not being served by the insurgents he praises so lavishly. He says these things purely for political reasons, or perhaps for personal gain. Galloway saw an opening for a rabid anti-war demagogue, and he ran with it, straight out of labor and into the one constituency that would make him a local hero.
There is nothing about Galloway that is decent or good. Unlike other odious politicians, he survives only as a channel for hate, with no constructive balance. He dishonors every ideal he cynically exploits, and makes a mockery of those who naively follow him in the name of those ideals.
Basically, he's a putz.
Comments:
Post a Comment
