Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones, But Op-Ed Pieces Sure Can Leave A Mark

I happened across a few opinion pieces over the last day or two that give lie to the old adage about “words can never hurt me”. If these opinion pieces are any indication, words certainly can sting, I tell you what.
First up is a piece by Alan Dershowitz that completely decimates Jimmy Carter (“History’s greatest monster”, if you prefer) and his pathological anti-Israeli views:

If money determines political and public views as Carter insists “Jewish money” does, Carter’s views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter’s off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter’s sad legacy.

Yeowch.
Next up is Jeff Goldstein who, in a post commenting on a Joe Lieberman op-ed in the Washington Post, sums up precisely what is wrong with the modern incarnation of the Democratic party in a single run-on sentence:

This is a conciliatory gesture, but an empty one, ultimately: because the fact is, the intent of anti-war Dems (which I see as an attempt to will the war into failure, blame Bush and Republicans, parlay that blame into electoral victories, then institute a foreign policy that will weaken the US militarily and force it to join coalitions of consensus, lorded over by international bureaucrats, while concentrating its energies domestic policies driven by a collectivist ideology and an unhealthy fealty to dubious social engineering) aligns with that of al-Qaeda.

(Emphasis Goldstein’s.)
Lastly is Iowahawk’s parody of a Toledo Blade post-VT-massacre-reactionary-gun-control editorial by one “Dan Simpson” that is so idiotic and so hare-brained that is absolutely has to be a parody itself. I mean, compare the original:

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.
Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

Compare to Iowahawk’s version:

Where was I? Oh yeah, the disarming the American population plan thing. First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty. As an added incentive, all owners tuning in guns would receive money saving coupons for Whole Foods and a gift subscription to Utne Reader.
Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal. It would be heavily guarded, by heavy guards. The hunters would be able to withdraw their guns each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest, with substantial penalties for early withdrawl. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. To insure the guards are not gun-nut double agents, each of these guards would be guarded by two meta-guards who would themselves be made to rub gravel in their hair and hold their palms over open flames as a test of loyalty to the disarmament cause. Also, these arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

Sometimes it’s scary how reality almost puts itself beyond parody.

Default image
Doug
Husband & father with youngins; Presbyterian; Will devops for boardgames; Dadjoke Enthusiast; Longtime WordPress user; The failure mode of “clever” is...