I Will Never Think James Lileks Is Anything But A Prick Again. Never, Never, Never

Since this is, apparently, catch-up-on-shit-I-missed-during-my-unannounced-hiatus day, let us take a look at an interesting post by America's most beloved humorist, James Lileks.

Just kidding. Erma Bombeck was America's most beloved humorist. James Lileks is merely a cheap imposter with less talent and, if his unpredictable bouts of savage anger at everything around him are any indication, more bowel trouble.

Regardless, the line I saw quoted several times last week referred to the Democrats, and went thusly:

"I will never trust these people with national security again. Never, never, never."

Being in possession of a fine appreciation for the absurd, I am amused by this, as it is an impressive attempt at adding rhetorical weight to his ideas by making it seem as though he were making a principled change of position.

Riiiiiight, James. Because you were completely onboard with the Democrats before their opposition to the Iraq war. It's too bad they've disappointed you so much that you had to change from a fervent supporter of George Bush into a...um...fervent supporter of George Bush.

Well, like most other cheap rhetorical tricks, two can play that game.

I will never vote for a man as dishonest as George Bush again. Never, never, never.

Also, I will never trust in the good intentions of Tom DeLay again. Never, never, never.

And finally, I will never support the repackaging of Rightwing objectives as anti-terrorism measures again. Never, never, never.

In a later post, he clarifies things a bit, saying that by "these people" he means "those whose default mode consists of turning the American people away from the war so they can get their committee chairmanships back."

Hmm.

"This isn’t necessarily a partisan thing," he adds.

Right. Because "get their committee chairmanships back" refers to the party in power. Or, you know, not.

Someday, I will write up a list of reasons why I dislike James Lileks; for now, I will conclude by noting with derision his definition of strength in a President:

"by strong I mean just that, not the “strength” that comes from writing up interminable treaties with belligerent tyrants and believing that we’ll be safe behind a mound of paper."

It must be nice to not remember anything before the fall of the Soviet Union, when a complicated web of treaties, agreements, and other such mounds of paper prevented a war the scale of which can only be described using words like "Biblical" and "apocalyptic."

Of course, if I really wanted to pop James' little Bush = He-Man bubble, I'd mention a certain incident involving a spyplane and the not-at-all belligerant tyrants who run China, but it just seems cruel to swipe the legs out from under his conception of the leader through whom he has been vicariously tough and manly. I get the strong impression that those aren't feelings he gets to experience very often in real life, so who am I to ruin it for him?

After all, it's not easy being a walking ripoff of a woman who's been dead for seven years.