I figured after a little time off I wouldn't get so sick reading and writing about the twisted minds of the conservative/TeaCrack Party, but I was wrong. Twitter has really fueled their lunatic scribblings. Check this out.
James Taranto, the WSJ rightwing nutjob whose job is the Best of the Web feature, which invariably means reposting whatever Glenn Reynolds or the halfwits at NRO write every day:
He is, of course, referring to the reports that a number of men used their bodies to shield their loved ones during the Aurora massacre. Most of us thought of this as a noble and amazing sacrifice, but to the American Taliban, these may have been slutty slut sluts who use birth control (or even worse, vote for Democrats!) and make their own decisions, so whether or not they deserved to be saved is up to wingnut judgment.
You know who got to make the decision whether their lives were worth it, Taranto? The three heroes who ate bullets saving their loved ones, not some fat scumbag neocon filth sitting comfortably with a glass of bourbon while wanking on twitter from the comfort of a wingback chair in Manhattan.
Taranto went on to pen a mea culpa, sorta kinda, at the WSJ:
We intended this to be thought-provoking, but to judge by the response, very few people received it that way. The vast majority found it offensive and insulting. This column has often argued that a failure of public communication is the fault of the public communicator, and that's certainly true in this case. What follows is an attempt to answer for this failure with a circumspect accounting of our thoughts.
One word: L.A.M.E.
Notice that at no point does Taranto say he's sorry for having even vaguely implied that the survivors -- who are also victims -- might be unworthy of the sacrifice. Nah. Being a right-wing a-hole means never, ever, EVER saying "sorry".
What you really notice here is that Taranto writes (habitually) in the Royal We, aka the Majestic Plural. In the 21st century, this kind of writing is perhaps excusable for editorials produced by an editorial board. Not so much for personal opinion columns. Then it’s just preposterously pretentious. Though perfect, in a let-them-eat-cake way, for a would-be spokesperson for the 1 Percent.
These people are sick. I thought once that Derbyshire had been shitcanned from the NRO we might make it through a national tragedy without this kind of crap, but I was wrong.
I often debated Derbyshire, who is a monstrous scumbag, demonstrated in this debate we had from April 19, 2007:
You've probably read the NRO's very own John Derbyshire's insane rant against the victims of the VT shooting. In his twisted mind he thought his logic was sound and repeated that he wasn't criticizing the students, but merely raising a point of conversation. Even J-Pod criticized him...I was on the Alan Colmes radio show a few days ago and had the chance to let him know how I really feel. I laughed at him when he told me to shut up because it reminded me of O'Reilly...
Amato: So Mr. Derbyshire, you are a coward. And if I saw you--- face to face---I would call you a coward because you are.
Colmes: You care to respond?
Debyshire: Ah, no actually--I don't respond to abuse. I get a lot of abuse...
Amato: That's abuse? That's just fact.
There's time for rational debate, but he's not a rational human being and he deserved to be treated accordingly. He thought I was abusing him for pointing out the obvious. He abused the students by his vicious words. Some things just need to be said.
It's awesome that Derbyshire was kicked to the curb by the NRO, but he's gone now, so Taranto must believe he needs to fill the void left by that A-Hole.
We've seen so many attacks of women and their rights since the teacrackparty sprang up from Fox News and the bowels of Glenn Beck, but this is a new and equally appalling one.