Double Standards
Stephen Pollard doesn't like double standards. Nor does he like racism. And he's most exercised about anti-Semitism, most recently detecting it in a Martin Rowson cartoon that had the Star of David in it. What to make of his recent sidesplitter then?
Even the most dedicated regurgitator of Republican newsletters needs a break. And Stephen gets his entirely non-racist kicks from "light relief" fantasising about urinating in Arabs' drinks. Or, that's how it seems. In his words, it's "up to those who have seen it to judge for themselves".
Even the most dedicated regurgitator of Republican newsletters needs a break. And Stephen gets his entirely non-racist kicks from "light relief" fantasising about urinating in Arabs' drinks. Or, that's how it seems. In his words, it's "up to those who have seen it to judge for themselves".
posted by StuartA at 5:25 pm
6 Comments:
I put one on my own site for the hell of it too but it didn't involve spitting in drinks. Madness gripped me and I linked to you because you always produce good reading but not enough of it. Took a long time for the Kamm article to appear. Maybe it's like a good wine - a little goes a long way.
Thanks for the link and the comments.
I neglect this blog partly because I spend too much time commenting on other people's, and partly because I don't know if anybody reads it. I'll add a reciprocal link, mad or otherwise.
Keep it up Stuart. I read it
I know I'm overcommenting and I'll have to stop it 'cause it's strangling the others but Chris Dillow made a point I can't put out of my mind about the more serious blogs getting less coments. It doesn't matter a toss what people think about your politics - you always go in like a laser, armed with the facts. It's a bit awesome, actually. I agree with Ian here - there'd ahve to be heaps reading.
He also dislikes distortion, apparently. But he is more than happy to distort the meaning of a recent Simon Jenkins article in the Guardian. The article argues that western military intervention in Lebanon won't work. But Pollard tries to make out that it's an incitement to terrorism. Mind-boggling. Is it any wonder the BBC ends up distorting things when he sets them such a bad example?
http://www.stephenpollard.net/002725.html
Please keep up the good work - Pollard needs cutting down to size.
Thanks for the encouraging words.
Jonathan:
I thought Jenkins's last line taken alone was somewhat ambiguous, but the overall thrust of the article was quite clear: it was against military intervention. Pollard's spin of "Sir Simon incites treason" was entirely unjustifiable.
But Pollard seems to be following a Melanie Phillips trajectory towards unremitting loud hysteria. I wonder frequently whether he can really believe what he says. The only thing that puts me off criticising him more is that I find it hard to believe that he's taken seriously by many.
What sort of fanatic, for instance, finds "light relief" in the idea of someone accidentally setting themselves on fire during a political protest, purely because he disagrees with their point of view? (I note he's taken the picture down now, as it was in "poor taste".)
Post a Comment
<< Home