View Sidebar
Finally Morrissey does something right

Finally Morrissey does something right

BBC NEWS | Morrissey sparks furore over Bush

“Rock icon Morrissey has caused outrage among US fans with reported comments that he wished President Bush had died.”

And of course, American fans are up in arms. What I don’t get over this is that … Morrissey (I presume) appeals to your “alternative” songlovers in the USA, people who don’t necessarily identify with the mass mainstream. That being the case, why are they up in arms over off-the-cuff remarks like that?

And contrary to popular belief, if someone called for Blair or the Queen to die, I don’t think Morrissey fans over here would rise up and demand someone’s head on a plate.

Oh, and for the record, I don’t want him dead. Removed from office with the rest of his cronies will do just fine, thankyouverymuch.


  • If you are really so confused, you apparently haven't written what I've said about Americans and their need to self-preserve.

    Because UK Morrissey fans and US Morrissey fans differ in their reaction (or, in the case you put forth, presumed reaction), somehow, in your mind, utter confusion sets in?

    Andrew, please. Different countries, different cultures, different reaction to Morrissey saying something absolutely stupid.

  • And by the way, if you actually read the recent polls, standing in support behind Bush IS the alternative in the US right now.

    But it might be a bit too much to actually expect you to keep current on the actual state of US popular opinion before commenting on it with any kind of supposed authority.

    Or maybe that's just how we do things here. Odd, we Americans, aren't we?

  • I'd settle for George Bush Jr having never been born rather than died. As for Morrisey's comments I suppose he's entitled to them. For those concerned, I'm sure Reagan's passing was some relief. My grandad had Alzheimer's and his last years were *incredibly* difficult for those involved.

    For Bush Jr to die instead I'm sure would be a relief to a lot of people, but he'd only be replaced my some other muppet. I'm sure the people pulling his strings would find some way to turn his death to their advantage anyway.

    Frankly, for the sake of his family, I'm happy the one who passed away was Ronnie. At least he seemed to achieve something when he was in power, and looked like he was genuinely concerned with peace and not his own over-inflated ego.

  • Rick: *Why* do Americans have a specific need to self-preserve, as opposed to the rest of humanity? Self-preservation is (I assume) endemic to all the civilisations of the world, otherwise they wouldn't have survived!

    Iain: What did Reagan do for peace, out of interest?

  • Joe G

    "And contrary to popular belief, if someone called for Blair or the Queen to die, I don't think Morrissey fans over here would rise up and demand someone's head on a plate."

    The Queen Is Dead/Margaret On A Guillotine, anyone? The latter song actually resulted in Morrissey to be questioned by police.

  • Blimey – is Morrissey still going? Another reason to avoid mainstream pop like the plague then… 😀

  • Reagan made me laugh. He was too harmless to actually launch a major campaign in a fight he knew he couldn't win.

    OK, so he wasn't exactly Mother Theresa or the Dalai Llama, but at least he didn't order blanket bombing of civiliant targets, claiming he was going to win some spin-doctored "war on terrorism".

    For someone who was regularly laughed at as losing his marbles, he was a lot less nutzoid than the current Commander in Chief.

  • Didn't he order the bombing of Tripoli?

    From BBC News

    "1986 – US bombs Libyan military facilities, residential areas of Tripoli and Benghazi, killing 101 people, and Gaddafi's house, killing his adopted daughter. US says raids were in response to alleged Libyan involvement in bombing of Berlin discotheque frequented by US military personnel."

  • Answering for Iain:

    In the words on your own Margaret Thatcher, "Ronald Reagan had a higher claim than any other leader to have won the Cold War for liberty and he did it without a shot being fired."

    In the words of Mikail Gorbechev, "Reagan was a statesman who, despite all disagreements that existed between our countries at the time, displayed foresight and determination to meet our proposals halfway and change our relations for the better, stop the nuclear race, start scrapping nuclear weapons, and arrange normal relations between our countries."

    One would assume any resonable human being would consider halting what seemed like an inevitable nuclear holocaust to be "for peace," but, as always, I'm not holding out much hope for you today, Andrew.

    And to answer your question to me:

    If you lived in a country that was repeatedly bashed (by people who fail to point that same poison tongue at their own leaders — see my blog), despite our best efforts to keep the rest of the world reasonably happy, and despite our (not Bush's, but the American people's) love and need for peace, and despite our respect for world cultures even at the now alarmingly clear expense of our own, perhaps you, too, would not be surprised to see the need for self-preservation (that, yes, we all do indeed share) ramped up just a bit at this particular moment in history.

    You probably couldn't understand why, if at an anti-Bush rally, an American might throw a punch at a French tourist chanting some nonsense about America being an imperialist blah blah blah that he was himself chanting moments before, but if you were an American you'd understand.

    Again I'll beg you to spend more time criticizing Blair than Bush, as the two are indistinguishable to my eyes. And yet you are so focused on MY leaders, way more than your own. Curious. Could it be a subconcious submission?

    For the record, Reagan was a moron. He did more damage to the US than good. A reporter today said his strongest memory of the Reagan years was the emergence of homeless families, and I realized that yeah, that's when I remember them emerging, too.

    I'm a liberal. Your a liberal. None of this changes the fact that I think you are so often wrong its unbelievable. That you can't imagine a single thing Reagan did for peace, when even Gorbechev himself credits the man with successfully ending the cold war… Andrew, you have outdone yourself.

  • Rick: On Reagan, you are right on the Cold War front. I apologise. My only defence – I never watched the news pre-Reagan (I was about 7…) so I just grew up assuming the Cold War was waning automatically. And just heard the soundbites and the military adventures in Libya and Grenada.

    As for why I don't attack Blair as vociferously – there's no point. On the Gulf War front, he does what Bush tells him to do. But at least he accepted Kyoto and the World Court. The other issues (ID cards, student loans), I do get to have my say. At the ballot box next year. And of course, the blogosphere (being as it is American-dominated) is far more interested in Bush than Blair.

    There's also the issue of presentation. Blair speaks of WMDs (and their lack of – and I have gone on at length on previous postings about how odious this has become, and what the results have been for the UK media at the very least). Bush tells Saddam to get their hide out of town in 48 hours or he'll declare war. Bush makes things personal. He doesn't make a secret of his neo-Christian right-wing leanings, his energy policy is decidedly capitalist-based and he makes gay marriage (of all things) a constitutional issue. Blair – as far as I know – doesn't do any of these things. One can argue that Blair is the truly compassionate conservative.

  • A few interesting things, one of which I noted in my blog last night:

    First, if Bush dies, Cheney becomes president. You might not know much about Cheney, mostly because he lurks in the shadows, but he is Bush's puppetmaster. If you think Bush dying is a good thing, I ask you to reconsider, since a half year of Cheney is worse than a hundred years of Bush. Apparently Morrissey is ignorant of our Constitution, or he would have never suggested such a thing would be positive.

    Unless, of course, he's a big old Cheney fan, and he's tired of Bush's wimpy laziness. Perhaps that's the case.

    Second, this statement bothers me:

    >As for why I don't attack Blair as
    >vociferously – there's no point.

    Huh? He's your damned PM, isn't he? Isn't he ultimately responsible for whatever the hell you've got going on over there? Maybe I'm mistaken, and the UK was annexed as an American state some time ago, but otherwise it is he that has to answer to you, not Bush. If you phrased your criticisms of Bush in a form more like "Blair sucks for doing this terrible thing Bush recommended he do" rather than simply "Bush sucks," I could take your criticisms a lot more seriously.

    And third, this:

    >[Bush] doesn't make a secret of his
    >neo-Christian right-wing leanings…
    >Blair – >as far as I know – doesn't do
    >any of these things.

    So you particularly dislike Bush because, unlike
    Blair, he's right upfront and honest about his
    particular brand of sinister conservatism. So, if I am hearing you correctly, if he had come out lying, pretending to be compassionate and gay-friendly, and would just try to hide his intentions, you would back off him a little bit.

    I see.

    No wait, I don't see at all. I'm going to need a better explanation than that.


  • *ahem*

    I just want to add one more thing (even though I hinted at it already):

    Saying "Bush's cronies" announces a tragic misunderstanding of the Bush administration. It is pretty much the common belief in the US that Bush is himself a hapless puppet, under the hypnotic control of Cheney and Rumsfeld. That's a very important point, if you want to really know just exactly what's going on inside the White House at the moment.

  • Why attacking Bush is "easier" than attacking Blair …

    a. There's so many fronts to choose from, ones of global significance – Kyoto, world court, Iraq, the wilful ignoring of the United Nations. Most of my problems with Blair (Iraq aside) are on domestic issues (student grants, ID cards, kowtowing to the petrol lobby) which patently wouldn't concern Bush. or you, presumably.

    b. It's a damn site easier to hit a target that jumps up and down screaming "hit me! I don't care!" rather than Blair, who's been given a bloody nose in the recent European elections.

  • Oh, and as far as I'm aware, I've never called for Bush's death, unlike some of my friends. Just for the current Republican party to be removed from office will do nicely, thankyouverymuch. Although I don't know enough about Kerry apart from "He's not Bush? Fine by me!"

Leave a reply

%d bloggers like this: