The Guardian has "created a rather liberal reputation for itself as of late"? It's the same newspaper that called for the destruction of Israel a few years back. The Guardian has a large circulation, as does the New York Times, but the Guardian makes the NYTimes appear almost right of center. Brits tend to be political hobbyists, but they're basically not all Guardian liberals and Brits, for the most part, have a friendly liking for the U.S.

Maybe it bothers him we are ignoring the obvious?

"the man's [Bush] either wired or mad. If it's the former, he should be flung out of office: tarred, feathered and kicked in the nuts. And if it's the latter, his behaviour goes beyond strange, and heads toward terrifying. He looks like he's listening to something we can't hear."

http://puppetstring.blogspot.com/

Almost no one can read that article without believing that it either urges assassination in jest or urges it sincerely with transparent pretense. Assassination is murder, regardless of the reason. I think the Guardian is incredibly irresponsible to publish that article which is just the type of thing many disturbed minds could take to be a "sign" that they should actually kill, a sign from God, or a sign of the social acceptability of such a murder. A few screwballs might read that and think to themselves - if a newspaper can write that it must be an "ok thing" socially to do - to kill this president. This article is an excellent example of "hate journalism" which is never morally acceptable. This is a "sick" suggestion to urge people to do. The Guardian is a sick organization if it does not immediately retract this item and apologize for it.

The last paragraph of this article today urges someone to consider assassination of Bush with the very slightest pretense of subtlety.

Please email this to anyone you know who should have an interest in such outrageous conduct, including the British government. Although the press is normally given wide latitude to publish opinion, at some point it does go too far. To me it would seem illegal, and I urge people to write to this newspaper and say so. Thank you.

Please email or fax a copy of this Email to at least three of your contacts together with your clear objection to this behavior. Ask each contact to write to the Guardian newspaper and other newspapers and object to this evil conduct from Britain. Put your heart into it if you agree this is bad. What could justify your time and outrage more than a proposal to murder the President? The mathematical result of every person causing five other people to take action is huge and necessary. In effect, this newspaper has joined forces with the terrorists who saw off the heads of innocent people in Iraq.

A list of network and cable channel email addresses is offered below as a starter. Also, a list of Email addresses for sending letters to editors of newspapers, including for the Guardian newspaper in England. Protect America and President Bush from a mass murder proposal. Write a few emails. Thank you.

Newspaper Email Addresses Note: always include your postal address & phone number (they demand it to take your letter seriously).

british newspapers:

: The Guardian [email protected]

The Independent [email protected]

The Times [email protected]

The Daily Telegraph [email protected]

The Observer [email protected] (subject field of email should say “Letter to the Editor”)

Daily Mail [email protected]

Mail On Sunday [email protected]

Daily Express [email protected]

Financial Times [email protected]

The Sun [email protected]

The Mirror [email protected]

News of the World [email protected]

Daily Post (Liverpool) [email protected]

The European [email protected]

The Irish Independent [email protected]

The Morning Star [email protected]

Magazines/Other: Newsweek [email protected]

Time [email protected]

New Statesman [email protected]

The Economist [email protected]

Today (BBC Radio 4 morning news) [email protected]

PM (BBC Radio 4 evening news) [email protected]

US Newspapers: New York Times [email protected]

The Wall Street Journal [email protected]

Washington Post [email protected]

Los Angeles Times [email protected]

USA Today [email protected]

San Francisco Chronicle [email protected]

Chicago Sun Times [email protected]

San Jose Mercury [email protected]

Boston Globe [email protected]

Seattle Times [email protected]

Houston Chronicle [email protected]

Baltimore Sun [email protected]

For the record, I realize the Guardian is very left-win. I was referring more to their recent intense involvement in American politics. As one friend said to me, "their tactics to support Democrats seem so counterproductive you might think they were conservatives in disguise."

And James, you seem to be taking this a little too seriously. The world is not about to end, so let's stop trying to get a letter writing campaign from Oregon going. I agree with CC that this was a bad attempt at satire/humor, so lets not start the Brit-hating. I'm sure they are going to get thousands of letters, seeing as I got this off Drudge.

I AGREE , that writing to Ohioans from England has to be the stupidest and most counter productive idea that I've ever heard. Rightfully, the Guardian retreated from that whole business.

But hello? Have you no sense of humor good man? I love the Guardian (and I'm not anti-Israel at all... I disagree with some opinions I've read in the Guardian on the Israeli issue while valuing its perspective on others... it's called nuanced thinking.)

This article nicely expresses the appropriate attitude of contempt that every patriotic American ought to have toward the dangerous ignoramus who sits in the White House.

"So I sit there and I watch this and I start scratching my head, because I'm trying to work out why Bush is afforded any kind of credence or respect whatsoever in his native country. His performance is so transparently bizarre, so feeble and stumbling, it's a miracle he wasn't laughed off the stage." Indeed, but the author may be paying too much RESPECT to the American public in imagining that it is capable of seeing the problem.

As for the juvenile humor about assassinating the President, in an adult populated democracy rather than erecting special zones where you may not speak (and calling them free speech zones), special pieces of patriotic cloth that you may not burn (by voting for unpatriotic anti-flag burning amendments), and special subjects that you may not joke about (Presidential assassinations), instead of all that you would have the ability to recognize a protest or a joke when you see one and move on.

In a serious democracy there would just be a whole lot less smarmy sanctimony, and 97% fewer sacrosanct words and objects. Juvenile humor doesn't bother me... juvenile calls for the repression of juvenile humor do bother me. They enrage me. They show why many Europeans think the US has gone off the deep end.

So please wake up and smell the double Americano with cream: Most of the world feels the way the author of this article does about Bush. And the post that started this article is a good example of how the rot starts at the top (with the repressive anti-free-speech Bush regime), and extends all the way down to Oregon blogs, with mock (or real?) offense at a little outraged humor.

Instead of getting all nationalistic and hot under the collar consider the possibility that this article is just expressing the common opinion and wisdom of much of human kind - namely that the Presidency of GW Bush is an affront to human decency. Under W. the US is heading toward war with the world, and the images of violence naturally boil up as people consider the growing imperialist and fascist threat here in America. Yes. GW. Bush really is that bad. And the complaint in this post is symptomatic of the fact that GW Bush thinking has permeated the land.

If only we had a left wing adversarial press in THIS country.... Oh well, that's what the Internet is for... spread a little reason and planetary culture to the citizens of this distant colony.

Hi Folks

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Brian but if you are going to be living in the UK and travelling in Europe you will find some of the same extreme views in a variety of political viewpoints. You won't find West Coast polite. Those folks have a far more varied political landscape and are more inclined to express their viewpoint robustly. Ever listen to the backbenchers go after the PM in open parliamentary debate ? I'd love to see Dick cheney tangle with that bunch.

thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Pat- I have seen Brit parliamentary debates, and I love them. Yet at the same time, I don't think they are the same as what was published in the Guardian. A huge difference I see (and you may not agree this is important) is context. When someone speaks in public, you judge them by words, location, manner of speech, etc. You could tell if they were joking or if they were dead serious. Yet in print media, you lose all opportunities to contextualize the words, which is why i say it is important that there is a degree of censorship (yes, i'll say censorship. we always must have some censorship. Like Alan Greenspan said, "All taxes are a drag on economic growth. It's only a question of degree." The same explanation applies to the media). Maybe it is a matter of personal views, but I do not in any way equate with what I watch at 10 pm (or whenever) on PBS with what I read in this column, specifically the assassination passage. It's as much about taste as anything else. Unlike James, I don't want to see this man in shackles being whipped by Prince Harry. But would we so carelessly dismiss an article in the New York Times lamenting the state of German politics and asking where Adolf Hitler is when we need him? No, and for good reason--there is no civil purpose to invoking men who have committed grave injustices against any people. So, in my personal opinion, I see a difference there. Maybe I was unclear when I said that I hoped other people didnt share these opinions--I look forward to arguing with wayward Scottish youth in Edinburgh about American and world politics (as a student of British history, I have some ammunition of my own), but I don't expect to see any of them calling for assassination or hinting at it; if they did, I would remind them not of censorship, as Miles fears, but of common decency, which is much harder to maintain when there are not standards set.

Miles- first off, I'd be the last person to call for serious free speech restrictions. My background is in journalism (high school and college papers, Portland Trib articles, and past employment at Willy Week) and I would detest any attempt to restrict my expressing my opinions. But at the same time, I believe we do have to set standards, arbitrary as they may be, for the sake of having standards. Anarchy in the media is not the answer--whatever libertarians may think, most people would be ill-served by a populace that was encouraged to express itself in any many it saw fit. If encouragements of assassination (which I realized were not serious, but did not read as being an obvious joke) are allowed, what about diatribes about the invidious influence of fags? What about a mainstream newspaper publishing a call for the reintroduction of segregation? I see these issues as being the same thing--value judgments that we make to enforce civility. Here is a clear example I have experience with: next to Columbia University is Barnard College, a girls school. The women who go there go there for many reasons, and all of them are highly qualified students. Yet they become the butt of contempt from Columbia girls and the objects of jokes and objectification from Columbia men. Well, I say that we should restrict (through societal pressure, not law) the mean-spirited insults that are tossed their way, because I believe that we are well-served by J.S. Mill's Harm Principle. Does the benefit of the action to the doer outweigh the costs of the action to the subject? And in cases like insulting women for their choice of school or bringing up the prospects of presidential assassinations, I say it doesn't.

I agree that our American media needs work, but I feel that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. That in itself is a wholely different discussion.

Brian, I find it difficult to read the original article without laughing in sympathy with the author, and I find the assasination comment so obviously over the top (two of the figures are dead, and one in a prison) that I really can't understand it as a problem. I can't even imagine that the Secret Service would consider it a problem, and it's certainly not my business to me more religious than the Secret Service.

I accept your good intentions, and I'm glad you called my attention to the article because I enjoyed it, but I cannot feel your outrage.

Anger at the letter writing campaign is completely understandable... it smacks of arogance and lack of political smarts.... (Confession... I wrote a Dean letter to Iowa.... I repent... it was almost as stupid as the Guardian campaign. I'll never do THAT again.... just the thought of some random Iowan receving my proDean letter from Portland Oregon makes me cringe... can I have that one back please?)

But don't let anger at that stupid letter campaign bleed over into anger at anger at artistic and journalistic expression of public outrage against Bush.... that is righteous anger that we should all honor, cultivate and encourage.

The reality of world opinion is not very kind toward the United States these days. The article reflects a cold, truthful, far too common opinion among many toward our institutions and leaders. Think this thread reflects the high degree of magical thinking we Americans use as our base for reality and depth to which we shall fall.

Miles- still don't agree with you, but we'll leave it at that for now, no point in reiteration. As for the letter-writing campaign, I apologize if I was unclear. I have no anger towards the Guardian; I think it was a stupid idea, but my reaction to that campaign was nonexistent when I first heard about it. I just mentioned it in relation to the article to create context.

And in no way do I think the Secret Service should be watching out for these people--that wasn't the point of my last comment when I addressed that issue. Taking it as a serious call for those three men specifically to kill the president...well, that would be the mark of someone who couldnt read between the lines.

Pearl- I would argue that it is often the rest of the world (namely continental Europe and sometimes Britain) that is not always connected to reality. How else do you explain something like the French govt's interest in opening stronger trading routes with the most repressive govt's in the world? While I am not one to ascribe to Freedom-bashing, I would say that their foreign policy is often more detrimental than anything we have pursued.

And unlike most people, I don't see the end of the world coming. I see one very bad president who has done much less to ruin this nation than he could. But i refuse to judge this country only on the opinion of nations that have many and have had many more problems of their own. I believe in John Kerry's vision of a "global test" as the standard in every case for a confirmation of our righteousness in acting (which incidentally, is a tactic previously laid out by several prominent American political scientists), but I also believe that the rest of the world has plenty of problems, and just trying to blame the U.S. for everythign because it is taking the lead in addressing issues such as terror (dont try to take this as any endorsement of Bush; i'm referring more to the general U.S. tendency to taking on the role of world policeman). We are a unique country in our proactive economic and military nature--we must recognize that when we consider our relations to other countries. Yes, we can do much better, but I would challenge a German who criticized our country by asking him how his educational system is doing right now; I would ask the British what they thought about the fact that their nation's Labour party is upholding values espoused by Margaret Thatcher; I would ask the Swiss if they believe they must remain a homogeneous, quasi-racist nation that excludes anyone who doesnt fit in well; and I would ask the Spaniards how they continue to deal with the fact that they sometimes forget that they are one country when they have Catalans vs. Valencians, etc.

Every nation has its problems, and while I welcome all criticism of the U.S., I still maintain a realistic faith in the future of the system. 60% of the world is democratic today because the U.S. model worked--that is a track record that I will bet against any short term troubles. Am I idealistic? I think you can tell that I am, but I'm fine with being a pragmatic idealist. It sounds better than whatever else I might be branded with...Godless liberal, for example.

In your list of newspapers you have The Sun, The Mirror, and The News Of The World. When you come to the UK have a look at these papers i think you'll be in for a shock! These papers are for people who prefer pictures to words! I only read The Sun on a monday at work because the sports coverage is really good. The rest of the paper is crap. Have a look at the online versions of these papers to see what i mean.

Brian: In one of your follow-up comments, you mention context...I think when you've had a chance to peruse the UK press awhile, it will put the Guardian into context. As an Oregonian who has spent more than a decade living and working in London, I can tell you that there is no way for you to contextualise (remember to substitute those "s"es for "zed"s over there) their press with your American experience. This article was both a bit of British irony and probably a (admittedly lame) attempt by the Guardian to play a bit with the tabloids at their own game. You see, every UK paper has a slant...worn totally on its sleeve. I recall when John Major was up for his first election and the opponent was the Labour Party's Neil Kinnock, the Sun (Britain's leading tabloid, the one that invented the "page 3 girls") endorsed Major by running an 8-page spread called "Nightmare on Kinnock Street" that featured photos of garbage in the street, anecdotes about higher tax bills, riots and a poor economy under the previous Labour govt. in the '70s. Under the UK's notoriously lax libel provisions, there wasn't a damn thing that anybody could do or say about it. BTW, did you happen to notice that James USA lists the Drudge Report as his URL? Could it be that right-wing nutters are using this site to try and do their bidding? Beware, beware...and keep an open mind when you go to Europe, Brian. It ain't all as it seems, and you'd do well to sit back and take it in for a few months before even beginning to react to any of it. Good luck...

'The Guardian has a large circulation'.

It does not.

Having considered the many viewpoints here expressed, I still view Brooker's piece as "not trivial."

It is interesting to note that in a forum such as this it becomes necessary to manifestly explain to others that it was in jest vs. serious. But that is part of the problem. This speaks to the risk of that piece inciting the wrong ideas in hot, deranged and/or misguided minds. It's dangerous and inappropriate. Dangerous games have played out between people with far less provocation/stimulus. Those who imagine themselves to be sympathetic to radical islam need little provocation at all to be violent.

I do believe that Brooker actually does feel the intense anger and hate toward Bush that seem evident in his words. His emotions are not exagerated, but raw, naked, harshly real.

I do believe that if Bush "happened" to be assassinated by someone, anyone, that Brooker would think that is terrifically good news. I believe he'd welcome that outcome.

Judging from the intensity of his language, and the fact of publication of it, I suspect that he frequently wishes Bush would somehow "disappear" from the scene by any means - assassination or otherwise. By this article he can communicate that fantasy/wish to the whole "insane," wild world while doing so in a way that he can sheepishly regard as "mostly" a joke all along.

And that is the crux of it to me. He appears to pour real hate into his "dual purposed words," knowing that in the "right" settings they can trigger all kinds of wild emotions/ideas in readers. It is like flirting with danger, and playing with fire.

John Hinkley is said to have shot President Reagan, not through any large grudge or conspiracy, but simply to show another - Jody Foster - his flashy place in history. Not much more than a whim carried him to his deed.

Many strange folks could construe that Guardian article as a sort of "sign."

I am concerned that when our world is filled with hot emotions pro and con about politicians, and there are hundreds of deaths a month in Iraq, including routine mpeg files or morbid beheadings to advance politics, that such messages as Brooker's are like tossing a match into a fire. He should know that. He probably knows that and tosses it anyway - for fun so they say. What is intended and what is merely allowed as possibility/risk? What is the difference and where is that line here?

That is quite wrong and dangerous in my view. Why is it wrong, after all, to "joke" about a bomb at the airport? Why, in reality, is it really a bad idea to pretend to have a gun in your pocket, pointed at a police officer so that he "can not tell what's up."? Ambiguous threats, especially to the president, are bad ideas. They set a bad precedent. They can too easily start the mind of strange characters rolling in the wrong, devastatinig directions.

Thanks for you consideration.

James

File a complaint at

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaint/complaintform.asp

Dammit. Now I'll never be able to quote another Guardian article to my husband in an argument over politics.

Today the Guardian published the below apology in place of the original article, and they admit it was tasteless and flippant. While I believe they should have screened this better before they published it, I certainly commend the paper for their quick and full apology, and for showing responsibility by withdrawing that poison from the global community.

Screen Burn, The Guide

Sunday October 24, 2004 The Guardian

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."

It's satire.

All you hypocritical rightwing nutters need to grow up.

Bravo to you, Brian, for calling this idiocy what it is. This type of journalism belongs in the Weekly World News.

As an American in Japan, I was rather enjoying Charlie Booker's article until the last line. Pres. Bush II disturbs me beyond words so my complaints are not because I like the man or his party. Only after reading up on Booker today, did I find out that he is supposed to be a funny guy in his little bit of the world and that the Guardian ran his article in some none-news section. When you are 30,000 miles away, the article just looked like news and I didn't get the ironic funny part at all.

My initial thoughts were as follows: 1 - If Pres. Bush deserves execution for his failings as a man and leader, what does Kim Jong Ill deserve? Flaying alive and malicious amputation? Why isn't KJI being written about? Pres. Bush needs to go brutal dictator school for some lessons to get into KJI's league. 2 - Okay, let's say Pres. Bush was dead, that gives us Pres. Cheney, a much scarier situation. 3 - Dude, if Pres. Bush was killed (or even just simply threatened), what hellish solution would America launch next? We would, as a country, go completely postal. 4 - Yeah, most people are completely sane. The article was put out on the internet which means "X" billion of people potentially can stumble across the article like I did. While I really like most people and think all the best about humanity, I am certain that some of us are completely nuts and have been moved by far less. 5 - The pen is mightier than the sword.

The article was completely inappropriate for a global audience and probably even inappropriate for a local one too.

Yo man,

You're a half wit who can't distinguish one genre from another.

Jeff,

Sure, this is opinion writing, not news coverage. Who's disputing that? Does that mean anything can be said? When have Krauthammer, et al., from the right "joked" about the assassination of their political adversaries? This was neither "good" nor "strong" rhetoric.

I've got nothing against the use of ridicule, when used well. But this writer has done something more in wishing out loud for the murder of a President. It's not funny, it's not professional, it's not decent.

The European left needs to get a handle on this growing hysteria toward the U.S. and President Bush. Same goes for many domestic commentators who seem to have lost all sense of proportion and have given free rein to their darkest emotions.

One thing I've learned from reading BlueOregon on a daily basis:

It's satire when you agree with it but a hate-crime when you don't.

Jeff,

I think it's good for terrible opinions to be "surfaced" so that they may be known, but they nonetheless reflect poorly on the newspapers that choose to publish them.

What should we think, for example, about a newspaper that published some statements that "joked" that people with dark skin color should be lynched when they misbehave or that Jews were the sons of monkeys, or whatever?

I'm not sure what Mike D is trying to say, but there's a difference between, say, Swift's satire about eating babies, and Booker's comment (which is not satire, whether one defends it or not).

Let me get this straight: when a columnist jokes about killing one person (Bush), it's an outrage.

When a person (Bush) orders an invasion that kills over 11,000 people, mostly innocent civilians, like women, children, elderly, etc. it's... what?

When that person commands a system that tortures hundreds of innocent people, including the torturing to death of at least 30 people, it's.... what?

When that person does little to stop the killing of tens of thousands of people in Sudan, it's... what?

When millions of people die around the world due to lack of medicine and clean water and food, people who could be saved by spending of $150 billion, about what we've spent on Iraq, it's... what?

Our intellectualizing of war has depersonalized the slaughter. Be outraged, yes. But focus the outrage on the real deaths.

I've just realized that I'm in ways a hypocrite. I watched South Park the movie last night while taking a break from economics and loved it. Ok, the Saddam jokes were just plain boring, but I loved it. Yet in that movie were images of Hitler, jokes about mass murder, Saddam having gay sex with the devil, and potty-mouthed Canadians. What I realized while watching this (Thank you South Park for teaching me right and wrong) was that I personally have two sets of standards--personal and societal. In my personal life, I'll accept basically anything--it's almost impossible to offend me. But I have a very strong sense of awareness of a greater societal good--like in econ, what may be best for the individual is obviously not always best for society. Thus, despite the fact that I personally feel no anger about Booker's article (though I think it was puerile and tred on well-worn ground, from a journalistic viewpoint), I empathize with people who are more sensitive, and I know there are many. it is hard sometimes to reconcile the two, especially when I find myself agreeing, on a personal level, with those who are saying here that this satire is nothing to worry about.

It all makes me think about Tocqueville's statement that as we become more and more equal as a society, the smallest inequality becomes more and more inoffensive. It seems to be worthy of mention as we debate over the power of words v. actions, and whether such words are really that important, or whether we are just overreacting.

"It's satire when you agree with it but a hate-crime when you don't."

Mike, I don't agree with you here. I don't think a statement like Booker's is one where you necessarily have to agree or disagree. While most people talking on this page I would venture agree with the general gist of the article (Kerry over Bush, even if he isnt perfect), the reaction is to certain statements. You are confusing beliefs with choice of words and analogies, which is really what was put up for discussion.

Steve,

I wish I had the time right now to spend on exhaustively addressing all that's misguided and wrong-headed and, frankly, a bit dishonest, about your post. Maybe later. But for now, just a couple of questions:

Because bad things are going on in this world that means what anyone chooses to say is of no consequence? That all criticism of the media should grind to a halt? That it's OK to suggest it would be good for an individual to be killed -- an individual, moreover, whose death would potentially have enormous consequences?

CNN's little round-up of the event (concise to a fault):

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041025%2F1402919596.htm&sc=1103

I prefer to write concise posts rather than lengthy ones and perhaps my earlier post was too consise ( It's satire when you agree with it but a hate-crime when you don't.).

Yes, cc, it's one-sided here but that's to be expected at BlueOregon--it's afterall not BeigeOregon.

I can understand advocating for a political party or outlook but if you allow your politics to come before consistent thinking based on reason and logic...well then it's really just a blind ideology. And I would post the same comment at RedOregon if there was such a blog because Republicans are just as guilty of it.

In this instance, was it out of line for a major newspaper publisher to publish a column that calls for the assassination of the President of the United States?

Does your answer depends on who the President is at the time? I don't believe it should.

Do any of those who herein wrote "it's a joke - forget about it", etc. feel that any jokes of that nature in publications have any limits at all?

Sample Web Posting:

Reward of $1,000 will be paid for scariest practial joke played on Mr. Brooker, who can be found at this below UK address. To qualify, the practical joke must lead to a news story in at least two British newspapers.

Mayfair House 14-18 Heddon Street London United Kingdom
W1B 4DA

RE: "There's a huge difference between jokingly suggesting that we call upon three people who cannot physically do anything to do what they're famous for and asking regular folks to wreak havoc on someone's life. Even in jest."

No. I think they are parallel. Brooker's message urged the idea of the Murder of Bush. It strikes you as a joke. It strikes me as his serious hate for Bush, wishing for the demise of Bush, even by way of assassination as was done by those three - for example. He wasn't seeking those three out in particular for their unique skill sets or good looks, but because their each examples of the type of person he was calling upon. His wish - packaged as a joke.

Bush and Brooker both live in identifiable homes. Bush and Brooker both leave their homes and could be followed from their to some vulnerable location. Both are made vulnerable "havoc wreaked on their life" as a result of some posted message on the Net.

It is not just the sober, sane and mild who may read Brooker's message, but the extreme, the deranged, the angry, the hallucinating schizoprenic who believes secret message inhere in his emails and newspapers. Anyone who reads Brookers piece responds according to who and what they are, subject to their mind. That is a key part of my objection to Brooker's post. It is not just the reasonable people who know Brooker and his style who read that, but the whole world of strange and violent people who act on stimuli foreign to you and I, by standards we've never dreamed of. Wide open risk is lit on fire for both Brooker and Bush. Quite similar no?

Part of the realism and "fun" of this "joke / example" is that any nutcase, angry person, extremist, sadist, and ex-military, etc. can read this and join the pool of possible tricksters....which is the same risk placed on Bush by Brooker's posting to the the whole world.

Amusing that a little column from the Saturday T.V. listings magazine in foreign newspaper is taken so setriusly by so many Americans.Ironic too, that those who see this as potentially inciting the stereotypical lone nutter with an assault rifle are so keen to give it publicity. Isn't it also strange that a the media in a country, that is so keen for its citizens to arm themselves to their teeth is is critical of those who encourage those citizens to do something practical with that hardware.

Brilliant logic, Tim.

<h1></h1>

The president elected in a year ending in zero does not survive his term in office. (Including the 2000 instance.) History's moving hand writes and having written moves on.

Before the reader confuses this message and its messenger, add that the curse lingered in footnotes of America's chronicles until the 1980 rightist rally politics pulled it from its stone silence and waved it with a war-whooping terror propaganda, meaning to ransom votes to Reagan from Carter on the threat to the lives of American hostages in Iran, and to advertise threat "there is a bear in the woods."

The curse was kept from oral folklore until it was spread against Carter supporters to shake their surety. After use, the curse was buried aside from the GOP's 2000 campaign. A suppression which today's younger brain-blanked rightists probably never heard of and may try to shout away in a review of American history. What history's hand has chiseled in granite grave markers is not erased by shouting. Nor does draping the bronze breast of Justice blanket this administration's arson crimes igniting the hellfury of their nationalistic pyre, flickering its Halloween ghoul light on the brazen war masks of fanatacism over the faces and farce from Ameri to Cheney, dancing dervish by the flames.

The president elected every twenty years (in a year ending in zero) does not survive his term in office. This message I read on the celestial reader board. Only in the NY Times Magazine interview with the Connecticut state astrologer, Feb. 2000, did I learn it is called Tecumseh's Curse. Delivered by his surviving brother, the Shawnee Prophet Tenskwatawa. Now when I read the message written over us all, I speak in character in his name.

The curse was cast in the so-called War of 1812, which came fostered by and set forth from Lewis and Clark, 1804. It is a curse drawn in a 200 year pattern of the planets through 2000. In the future the planets rearrange and the spell is broken, just as other curses are ending this year and this election.

The root of the curse is wampum, money, and comes upon those who prosper in money trade, and falsely tax wages instead of true work. Money's property disorders are long-running, in every fourth 200-year chapter -- 1800-2000, 1000-1200, 200-400, 600 B.C.-400 B.C., etc. (in rounded numbers). And returns later, 2600-2800. The planets identify the disease years, not the sufferers. The curse is not on the money, it is in money. The fashion of the U.S. dollar manifested in 1812 right after the expiration of the founding's First Bank; four years, a land rush and a war before the 1816 Second Bank charter, and its removal, and another charter, and its fall, and another ... today is redrawn and fresh printed toward a reforming, and ending the curse. A dispirit on land that's claimed by money, when in truth the only currency that owns land is labor.

All things contain their opposing forces and as there are those holding it up there are those pulling it down. We are the agents. As giving a fish is less labor than teaching to fish, so giving a message is less love than teaching to read. Time is money. But labor is love. Such aims point the difference in agents.

Tenskwatawa says how to read the patterns.

Rash Lamebrain says "B C__ does not deserve to be president, somebody oughta just go shoot ... oh, nevermind, I could get in trouble for what I'm thinking," (Wed., Nov. 4, 1992, 10:59 am PST; when the name broadcast in the blanks was elected president the day before). In the first months of the new administration, two drive-up snipers and a suicidal-attack Cessna pilot all locked down the people's White House into a barricaded cell.

Rash Lamebrain saying (Oct. '98) "Won't somebody deliver me from the Barney Franks of the world," (noted gay congressman), carried in 48 hours to Cheney's Wyoming cheyennes torturing and murdering Matthew Shepard.

Liars Larson says "I wish somebody would have pushed them out," in his spite to a Page One photograph of President Bill and First Lady Hillary Clinton at the vista out of Africa's Door of No Return thirty feet above the photographer on the Mar.-Apr. '98 Africa tour.

Liars Larson caller says "What do we call drivers in cars with ACLU bumperstickers? Targets." thirty days ago at the assault rifle arming.

The police chief in my town, as he and I stood talking last summer, beside and about a proposed Wal-Mart site, said he was unaware Wal-Mart is the largest gun dealer in the U.S. and in the world.

Some agents teach reading. Some falsely read a riot act aloud to listeners and put thoughts in brains that don't mind. Equating the injuries from reading what's written, to the injuries from hearing what's spoken (broadcast), is unbalanced to measure. The one is inflicted on mature minds developed enough to read, the second is inflicted on most-impressionable pre-schoolers, dyslexics, illiterates, workers on the job without time to read, and any who rely on another's reading. The pre-schoolers Lamebrain spoke in the ear of in 1992, this year vote their first time, possibly. Hypnotists do not induce trance with written instructions.

The agents behind the phony comparison (of writing with speaking), are disorienting the bearings of this election. Nationally, it's a voter's choice between a reader, and a non-reader who puts himself betranced and then betrays our spirit. The Dow was down again today, each downtick writing a new record low this year. The corruption of our cooperated unity, the corruption of our education standards, the corruption of our health and personal caring, the corruption of our judiciary, the corruption of our common defense and guards -- each and all of these spoken and done daft by the non-reader leader.

In this election a quarter of the votes are not marked on paper. Touch-the-TV votes, a laying on of fingertips, gone when the electric power blinks off. Perhaps that is election assassination.

Some might say 'assassination' for the suicide of self-destructive dharma. Let them talk and scream and pull the plug on their broadcasting. They are not reading what is written in the sky.

The president elected in a year ending in zero does not survive the office.

<h1></h1>

<h1></h1>

Sorry, one explanatory line got edited out. The pattern of Jupiter / Saturn conjunctions in Earth signs (which is what connects the pattern to 'money' and 'property'), occurred in 1800, 1840, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, and 2000, (skipping 1820, which was last of the Fire signs sequence from the 1600s, and skipping 1980, which was first of the Air signs sequence into the 2100s).

But then, nobody really believes in any of this stuff, do they? So what's it matter?

Sorta like the scene about 1680, when Edmund Halley, (you know, the comet guy?), disparaged astrology and its adherents until the put-down from Sir Isaac Newton, (you know him but might not know he chose the date for laying the cornerstone of somewhat venerable Greenwich Observatory), who shot back, "Sir, I have studied it, you have not!"

<h1></h1> <h1></h1> <hr/>