Wingnuts

Feline Whine

« January 2007 »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
1
6
7
13
14
16
20
21
25
27
28
30

Memo to Dinesh D'Souza: PUSSY*.

You're a pussy. A huge pussy. A gynecological Grand Canyon. A Marianas Trench of muff. Let me put it this way. You're such a pussy, when you go out on a windy day, you wear a clitoral hoodie. You're a spineless, disingenuous, craven little fucktard who's earned every last shred of abuse laid at your feet and then some. So shut the fuck up and grow a pair, or, barring that, buy a pair with your next royalty check.

D'Souza, as you probably know, is the author of "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left And Its Responsibility For 9/11", and quite easily the frontrunner for stupidest book of 2004. I've included the full title because you need to remember it, it's important as we begin to explore the depths of D'Souza's pussitude.

I haven't bothered mentioning the book before because, well, it's the kind of book whose sole purpose is to be mentioned. It's Internet trolling that kills trees. And there's obviously money to be made in this brand of ridiculous attack-dog novel-length punditry. D'Souza's book exists for a purpose, and getting cranky about it just serves that purpose.

No. D'Souza's pussiness became evident on Sunday, when D'Souza ran like a little bitch to his mommy (his mommy in this case being the Washington Post editorial page) to whine about how everyone was being MEAN TO HIM just because he wrote a book saying that Bin Laden wouldn't be so pissed at us if we weren't fighting for gay rights. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"But the personal attacks have reached new heights with "The Enemy at Home." So much so, in fact, that I feel compelled to explain why I wrote this book, what it does and doesn't say and why I think it prompts people to threaten me with hospitalization."

Here we see a fundamental misconception of the concept of basic literacy. We have an AUTHOR, offering to explain to the READERS, what he did and did not say in his BOOK. His book which, before you even get past the jacket, has already identified the "cultural left" as "the enemy", and bearing "responsibility for 9/11". That D'Souza got ripped to shreds by critics, embarrassed publicly on Colbert, and openly mocked by people all over the political spectrum is not a sign of the breakdown of civility. It's a sign that the system still works a little bit. Say moronic shit, get pilloried for it in public.

So what's D'Souza's defense? "First, and I feel silly having to say it: I don't hate America." That he feels silly saying that, but managed to get through all 352 pages of his manuscript with a straight face, tells you everything you need to know right there. Not that it's relevant - D'Souza's crime is not hating America. It's being stupid - either naturally or to sell his book.

"Immediately following 9/11, there was a wondrous moment of national unity in which the American tribe came together. 'Why do they hate us?' some wondered, but no one wanted to comprehend the enemy -- only to annihilate him. And I shared this view."

D'Souza seems disappointed that the blinding haze of rage post-9/11 has dissipated. Yeah, what a shame that people are finally realizing that an unwillingness to comprehend the enemy equated to an unwillingness to even correctly IDENTIFY the enemy. A tradition of unwillingness D'Souza's book aptly continues.

"So why has "The Enemy at Home" been so intemperately excoriated? I can imagine only two reasons. The first is given by James Wolcott himself. I am not, as he says, an unqualified right-wing hack. Rather, I am a scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, so Wolcott fears that I will be taken seriously."

Oh, for fuck's sake. The last refuge of the pussy. Yes, Dinesh. Your ideas are so revolutionary, your credentials so unassailable, that the establishment fears your ideas and must destroy them before they catch on. That's what it must be. It can't be that you're wrong, because right-wing hacks, regardless of how qualified they may be, only recognize the concept of "wrong" from a moral standpoint. Buttsex can be wrong, but 352 pages of cockeyed analysis with a deliberately provocative title? Can't possibly be.

"The second reason can be gleaned from the common theme in the reviews: that mine is a dangerous book." Um, Dinesh, that's not two reasons. That's one reason padded out to fill multiple paragraphs that you've individually numbered. And now we all know why your book clocks in at 352 pages.

It happens so often that it barely bears mentioning, but coming from a member of the party of personal responsibility, people who demand that everyone else stop trying to claim victimhood, it's especially charming to watch them howl like a fucking banshee the instant anyone dares toss a harsh word their way for saying something stupid like "The thrust of the radical Muslim critique of America is that Islam is under attack from the global forces of atheism and immorality -- and that the United States is leading that attack." I'm not saying we should be surprised when a fuck like D'Souza is caught in such a stark moment of logical contradiction and hypocrisy, I'm just saying we should call them what they are. Huge fucking pussies.

*And yes, I am aware that "pussy", as a slur, carries with it a certain inevitable baggage of misogyny. But the word that fits is the word that fits, and I figure I've called so many people "dicks" over the course of this column that I've earned enough credit on the other side of the power dynamic.

Syndicate content