HunterByrd

Ever quite said of Chamberlain?

Heady times. The US election draws ever nearer, and while the rest of the world bangs its head against the floorboards screaming "Please God, not Bush!", the candidates clash head to head in a series of live televised debates. It's a bit like American Idol, but with terrifying global ramifications. You've got to laugh.

* * * *

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Posted loud and clear, first on Drudge in red print. Written by the Brit-clever hack Charlie Brooker in Guardian Unlimited. I will smile and tuck this one away. When was the last time an American Presidential election, as contentious as they have been, has ever drawn this much attention. If W subscribed to the Clintonian philosophy (that ANY publicity - no matter how negative - is infinitely beneficial in the long-run), he'd be in hog heaven. I suspect that is not the case.

To Mr Brooker and his like: if we didn't know better, we might believe those were fighting words of the worst sort.

UPDATE: Said far better than I by Deacon at Powerline:

Yet, the rationalization reveals the true source of Bush-loathing -- hatred of the religious and core philosophical underpinnings of western civilization (represented in the leftist parable by the ancient Greeks). But if you hate these things, what remains worth defending about the west? The only thing I can think of is its hedonism. That's how the Islamofascists see it too. And they have figured out that, if that's all the west is fighting for, the west will lose.

UPDATE: A "correction" has been posted by the Guardian, as follows in toto:

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

Charles Brooker said what he said. As a (struggling) Christian, I don't harbour near the ill-will Mr Brooker does.