Eight work days with no Pulp. Came back to 1,200 spam messages. Spent the week with family, eating, drinking, trying to be merry, watching football, and dealing with the deaths of Gerald Ford and Saddam Hussein (ah, to be truthful, neither one had much affect on me). I didn't read the newspapers much, but I read enough to have my illusions shot all to hell. The truth about Santa Claus was hard enough to take, but no Skunk Ape? That steals the heart right out of you.
What I saw from the Sun-Sentinel wasn't too bad, maybe because it seemed the Help Team was on vacation along with me. The editorial section, however, managed to be worse than usual, which is saying something. It served up a lot of knee-jerk chicken during the holidays, most of it (right) wings. First on the eve of Christmas Eve it attacked Jimmy Carter for his book, Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. Seems the editorialists at the Sentinel are sick and tired of Carter and everybody else being biased for the Palestinian people, so they valiantly stood up for Israel -- a courageous position in South Florida that doesn't at all amount to pandering.
The funniest part of the editorial is that the half-baked writer admits three times that he hasn't read
the book. Second line: "But he has now written a book, that, if published reports about it are to be believed, damages that reputation." [ital. added]. What "published accounts" might those be, Sun-Sentinel? The Weekly Standard? Care to tell anyone?
It's amateur hour. And the argument contained in the editorial -- that the Palestinians don't technically live under apartheid -- amounts to a weak and general endorsement of what the world knows is a Godawful occupation that must end.
Now there were other examples of this kind of crap that I can't recall at the moment. But after the schmucks at the Sentinel were attacking Carter (who helped bring the greatest peace treaty to the Middle East ever negotiated) for speaking his conscience, they defended the war starter in the White House whose debacle of a presidency has crippled any chance for the two sides to come together. In today's second editorial, they scoff at an AP poll that found that Americans consider George W. Bush to be the world's biggest villain of the year. Here's what the brilliant thinkers at the Sentinel wrote about it:
Yes, he far outdistanced Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong II of North Korea. In the eyes of the Americans involved in that poll, none of those folks came close to being as big a villain as the president of the United States.
It is one thing to disagree, even vehemently, with Bush. The country showed decisively in the last election their disagreement with many of his policies and his conduct of the war. There have been few presidents as unpopular.
But does America really think he is a bigger villain than bin Laden? Or Hussein? Or any of the others?
They concluded: "Americans need to understand who is really bad." To the editorial jackass who dreamed this one up: It was for villain of the year. What did bin Laden do in 2006? Hide in a freaking cave in northern Pakistan probably. Hussein? He sat in jail before he was hanged. Now how about Bush? Oh yeah. He oversaw his continuing disastrous war in Iraq that has seen probably a half million civilians killed, 3,000 American soldiers dead, tens of thousands horribly wounded (physically and psychologically), hundreds of billions of our hard-earned dollars squandered, etc., etc., etc. Of course Bush is the year's greatest villain. Hilariously, the writer compares Bush to Jerry Ford.
"Ford has been looked upon fondly for years, long before his death last week. People respected him, and came to understand that his pardon of Nixon was courageous and necessary at the time to help the country get through a horrible crisis in government. Whether people will ever look back at George Bush fondly is very questionable."
Sure is. Finally got something right.