Join 3,375 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


June 18, 2001
9:38 PM   Subscribe

Some guy named Lileks asks, Who cares that the European bureaucratic intellectuals are so intent on hating Bush? In a funny way. (Link will eventually move here, since that site's designers don't seem to know what they're doing.)
posted by aaron (18 comments total)

 
It makes one wonder when Europe is ever going to end this terrible and vicious campaign of America bashing. It's enough to give America's heroic sons and daughters a chronic case of self-hatred.
posted by lagado at 10:25 PM on June 18, 2001


I will happily tolerate wrongheaded conservative rhetoric in the name of comic Euro-bashing.
posted by jjg at 11:07 PM on June 18, 2001


Here's an example of that viciousness I was talking about.
posted by lagado at 11:36 PM on June 18, 2001


i wish he'd just rant about europeans without mentioning bush and going on about 'europhiles'.
posted by elle at 11:45 PM on June 18, 2001


"Europhiles" sounds dirty. Invokes images of FBI guys going through you mpeg collection in the hidden folder on your hard drive.

"Bukkake, bukkake, bukkake, midgets, leather clowns... mm-hmm....omigod...Fawlty Towers! You're going down, you sick little monkey..."
posted by dong_resin at 12:02 AM on June 19, 2001


Just remember what's really bugging many American Europhiles: They can never be French or Italian.

One of my Manhattanite friends is skippyjoy over-the-moon with her new Italian passport. I must call her with such disappointing news. She was so looking forward to the food.
posted by holgate at 5:55 AM on June 19, 2001


They have centuries of rule by inbred families; our aristocrats always peter out by the third generation. (e.g., the tertiary Kennedy lads, the Bush daughters, etc.)

Assuming Sen. Prescott Bush deserves to be considered the first generation, the "third generation" rule means that President Bush and his brother Jeb are the ones petering out the dynasty. Though I can buy that premise, I get the impression from James' astonishingly Republican essays that he wouldn't. (Et, tu, Bleatee?)
posted by rcade at 6:17 AM on June 19, 2001


Incidentally, when does Lileks sleep? Daily columns on The Bleat, weekly columns in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune "Backfence", weekly columns on Jewish World Review, a huge web site, and a new book. And he still takes the time to appreciate a good dog. I'm beginning to think we may be in the company of a national treasure.
posted by rcade at 6:23 AM on June 19, 2001


I'm beginning to think we may be in the company of a national treasure.

That would only be the case if he were funny. "Wait, I know what'll get the laughs - if I make fun of those wacky European countries! My God, they don't even know how to properly demoralize their workforce! Hyuk!"

Wanker.
posted by solistrato at 7:53 AM on June 19, 2001


Or at least a very prolific insomniac....
posted by briank at 7:53 AM on June 19, 2001


(oops, solistrato slipped in on me)
posted by briank at 7:54 AM on June 19, 2001


I don't think I'd mind the Euro-bashing or Bush-defense or even Lilek's ego-stroking if this happened to be funny.

Unfortunately, it isn't.
posted by dogmatic at 8:04 AM on June 19, 2001


Waiter, please bring an order of sour grapes to Solistrato's table.
posted by mac at 8:09 AM on June 19, 2001


Tough crowd. I think some of these columns are pretty funny, if you can get past the fact that he's using comedy to serve evil.

I loved the intro to his column on bipartisanship:
"BIPARTISANSHIP is dead," said Dick Gephardt, slowly lowering the body to the floor. He wiped off the knife, replaced it in his pocket, and went on to explain that Bush's mad dash for ruinous tax cuts had chopped down the tender shoots of comity and love.
For those of you who are discovering Lileks through these political essays, please visit his Institute of Official Cheer before filing him under "Humorists, Not-Funny".
posted by rcade at 8:12 AM on June 19, 2001


I have to say I found Lilek's work via his posts here and in general find him amusing.
But this essay just reads one (or more) of:
Cheap laugh at the expense of Europe.
American inferiority complex masquerading as humour.
Drunken, under 21-year old American in London Pub (seen only too often recently...).
or at best just an unfunny essay.

Could (and ususally does) do better.
posted by Markb at 9:03 AM on June 19, 2001


I thought it was laugh-out-loud funny, as is usual from Lileks. It does help, I suppose, if you share the "astonishing" polical views.
posted by mw at 11:32 AM on June 19, 2001


Oh, I dunno. I thought it was just a wee bit heavy-handed, especially for someone who's normally a great judge of tone. (It actually reads better late in the day, with his radio voice in mind.) But I think someone like Molly Ivins is much worse, with her lazy jabs at Bush: there's precious little wit, compared to parliamentary sketches of someone like Matthew Parris.

Perhaps Tom Lehrer took the best course, retiring from political satire when Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize.
posted by holgate at 12:28 PM on June 19, 2001


oh, molly ivins is just shrill and obvious. I've never been able to understand why people read her. - rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 12:37 PM on June 19, 2001


« Older From its origins as Stalinist rhetoric in the 30'...  |  Highway to Hell... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments