Reading an AP story on George Clooney's blog entry on Huffington Post, I find his comments characterized by this particular segment of the "liberal media" as "profanity laced."
I had to scurry back to the blog to check that out.
Unless I missed something, here's the sum total of the "lace":
Hell, I'm proud of [being a liberal].Clooney's language is no stronger than that sometimes used by Richard "Fuck yourself" Cheney or George "Asshole" Bush.
[snip]
We knew [the purported connections between Hussein and bin Ladin, between Iraq and 9/11] was bullshit.
[snip]
It makes me want to shout, "Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."
Furthermore, Clooney's words were rhetorically appropriate both for his purpose (a strongly worded call to action by liberals) and his audience (liberal GROWNUPS, most of whom have heard these words before, reading a liberal blog). (And notice, if you will, how the intensity of the obscenities escalates as the essay develops. Nice job, George. A few extra check marks in the margin for you.)
Anyway, there are those of us who think that most media stories on Iraq, the Bush Administration, etc. are "profanity laced" based on content.
But what do we know?
(By the way, is it coincidence that the accompanying photo is the most unflattering one of Clooney that I've ever seen?)
2 comments:
Dear Bitty,
Please keep defending our Irishman George, and is there any way of erasing that awful last photo?
Love,
Alanna
Ah, Alanna, I'm afraid the photo must stand as proof of my point. One must have evidence, after all, to make a decent argument.
I've always thought George looked like his good-lookin' dad Nick. In that picture, he IS dad Nick. Good thing Nick has aged gracefully, too.
Post a Comment