Times are changing in the Middle East, as People are learning that a few million of them protesting at once might have an impact and, in some cases, even topple and overthrow a government - something Canadians, for example, had long forgotten, as they are ruled by a minority party that can't even get 30% of the vote.
Why are the regime changes not enough? Why must Western (professional) news readers and commentators laugh at the toppled dictators' physique? Two nights ago, Jon Stewart
described Muammar Gaddafi
(Kadafi for some) as a ''tired Lionel Richie
impersonator'', which would have been enough, but added ''perhaps he should do less Dancing On The Ceiling
''.Today, Robert Fisk
, commentator for The Independent
, called him ''the old, paranoid, crazed fox of Lybya - the pallid, infantile, droop-cheeked dictator'' in his introduction, and went even further in his conclusion:The old boy looked bad, sagging face, bloated, simply "magnoon" (mad), a comedy actor who had turned to serious tragedy in his last days, desperate for the last make-up lady, the final knock on the theatre door.The complete story is here.
Like... really? You can't get over his fucking face? Why not a single fucking word about why his people are mad, what he did to them to incite revolt? Why is what he looks like more important than his mental state, his whereabouts, how he's preparing his legacy and/or the follow-up to his administration? Or the one mistake he made that got his opponents thinking now would be a decent time for an uprising?
But no. He looks like a drag queen who has gone sleepless for months on a crystal meth binge. Much more fucking important.
No comments:
Post a Comment