Right(wing)eous indignation, continued

The other day I noted that far-right bloggers are aghast and incensed over “Death of a President,” the British-made, soon-to-be-released docudrama depicting the 2007 assassination of President Bush. I am consistently amused by the irony emanating from the discombobulated and the hapless, and in this case the irony is grand: The same right-wingers constantly priding themselves on being “non-PC” again demonstrate that it’s only OK to be smug about this when the target of mockery isn’t a fictional character such as a competent Bush, a queer-bashing Christ, an honest Bill O’Reilly, or a scholarly, objective, non-plagiarizing Ann Coulter. Go after these icons, however parodically, and the mental flatliners start screaming holy hysterical hell.

Thanks chiefly to a brief exchange on Thinking Meat, I have been led to especially off-kilter examples of “logic” in terms of the unpalatability of the film (which, incidentally, is not slated at this point to air in the U.S.). The bastion of dignified insight named “Dan I” who made himself heard at Thinking Meat posted a typically semidecipherable polemic on his own blog concerning the film, and his responses to the commenter Ryan Oddey are telling:

1. Are you telling me that there is no connection between liberal hollywood and productions such as West Wing, Commander and Cheif and this piece of shit?

I’m assuming that Dan (who may be unaware that “D.O.A.P.” is not a Hollywood production) is referring to the same liberal Hollywood that for years has been routinely churning out action films featuring terrorists who are almost exclusively of Middle Eastern extraction. As much a reflection of contemporary reality as such portrayals might be, painting Arabs as homicidal lunatics is an odd habit for alleged al-Queda sympathizers to maintain, especially given that the white guys always prevail in these movies. Liberal Hollywood has also been known, surprisingly enough, to make motion pictures depicting the triumph of Americans over Communist and even Nazi adversaries. A lapse in concentration, maybe?

2. How we handle our business is none of the world’s business. If some limey has a beef with Bush, that’s grand. Nobody with common sense brain cell 1 gives a shit.

Well, this claim might make sense if the U.S. operated in a vacuum. The fact is that America tends to become involved in foreign affairs and influence the political doings of other nations. I believe at present there are a number of U.S citizens roaming around in one of the drier, more petroleum-rich areas of the globe, but I can’t be sure as reading winger blogs has convinced me that following current events isn’t a prerequisite for making declarative statements about global affairs; raw emotion and repetitiveness is sufficient.

3. I’m going to make a movie about the fictional assasination of Barrak Obama. After all, it’s a dialogue that the world needs to have. What say you?

I can’t decide whether Dan’s particular fascination with “Barrak” Obama lies more in the fact that Obama is black or in the resemblance of his surname to “Osama.” Either way, Dan, go ahead and get to work on that movie. Just be sure to let someone proofread the script before you start shooti — er, filming.

As a nice complement to Dan’s aggressively illiterate irrelevance, “Ms. Underestimated” (whom it would be difficult to underestimate in matters of intellect) offers a more paranoid but equally irrational complaint. She writes:

The movie is the ‘Death of An American President'” The huge rub on this is that it’s being billed as a DOCUdrama! Hello? “Docu” indicates there’s some form of truth to the project.

It apparently hasn’t occurred to this bastion of comprehensive analysis that a “docudrama” might include elements of fact and fiction (hence the name) and that viewers of the film are tacitly invited to consider what is drawn from contemporary historical fact and what is strictly fiction. However, the latter task is clearly beyond the reach of a distinct segment of the so-called conservative spectrum, so I’ll elaborate:
The last time I checked, George Bush had not been shot dead by a sniper. However, the United States of America does exist, as do Congress, the city of Chicago, and the White House, which hosts the office of the President of the United States (also known as the Oval Office).

Isn’t “fictional documentary” an oxymoron? Oh, yeah that’s right… “Farenhyte 9/11″ was also a “fictional documentary,” although every democrat swears it’s 100% true.

Neat trick, eh? “Ms. Underestimated” evidently thinks that “docudrama” and “fictional documentary” are synonymous, much in the same way, I imagine, that “historical fact” and “historical novel” are one and the same.
Perhaps wingers’ widespread unquestioning trust in the Bible warps their ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, but most people don’t have this problem and will not be compelled to take up arms against politicians after watching “Death Of.” On that note, though, I wonder why the wingnuts fail to express outrage over the violent events in Iraq reaching millions of U.S. households every hour of every day; after all, such footage will only inspire crazies to run around and start shooting any and all swarthy folks, right?
As always, my basic question is this: Who boots up these people’s computers, registers them domain names and Blogger.com identities, and moves their fingers around their keyboards whenever they get to grunting and sputtering in agitation?

2 thoughts on “Right(wing)eous indignation, continued”

  1. A story about Bill Clinton being tortured and killed is one I would like to see. Perhaps by all the the Ghosts of the dead from 9/11 that are now obviously weighing heavily on his conscience as he now tries to rewrite history. His closest confidant, Dick Morris has exposed his many shortcomings on fighting terrorism. I wonder if the Media would be as disinterested in Carl Rove telling all about GWB as they have been with Dick? I simply can’t imagine both Rove and Dick Chaney turning on Bush after his term is over like Gore and Morris have turned thier backs on Clinton. I wonder why that happened? There is no honor among thieves.

Comments are closed.