Dave is in a hole and should stop digging
He is manfully trying to defend the proposition that there is nothing odd or improper with coming home from a memorial service for war dead, and saying the equivalent of "thank god that's over, now let's fuck". He is having a whale of a time suggesting that we are all sexually hung up and squaresville for thinking there is.
A simple thought experiment will sort this one out.
If, prior to this revelation, somebody on the AW site had written "I think it is quite likely that members of the Blair government just stood there at the Iraq memorial service, muttered their way through the hymns, then just went straight home and fucked their secretaries", do you think Dave would have said "yes, you're probably right, not that there's anything wrong with that, it's the sort of thing we'd all do if we had a central London apartment and a willing secretary". Or do you think he would have said "that is a vile and unbelievably offensive calumny"?
A simple thought experiment will sort this one out.
If, prior to this revelation, somebody on the AW site had written "I think it is quite likely that members of the Blair government just stood there at the Iraq memorial service, muttered their way through the hymns, then just went straight home and fucked their secretaries", do you think Dave would have said "yes, you're probably right, not that there's anything wrong with that, it's the sort of thing we'd all do if we had a central London apartment and a willing secretary". Or do you think he would have said "that is a vile and unbelievably offensive calumny"?
posted by The Rioja Kid at 5/05/2006 07:29:00 AM
5 Comments:
I suspect tomato-on-toast boy is the one with problems. DA has moved on to another subject entirely and is, erm, not bovvered with Prescott's priapism, one way or another, in his latest effort. Catherine Bennett (is she another of your betes noirs?) nailed Prezza good and proper in yesterday's G2 for his true crime of acting like an abusive old goat. Enough with the Mail on Sunday sanctimoniousness, already.
DA has moved on to another subject entirely and is, erm, not bovvered with Prescott's priapism, one way or another, in his latest effort
He is so not bovvered that he has replied to the Mail editor's letter on his blog and put a "piece from the archives" up about it. He's bovvered; as well he should be, this was a really stupid error.
I confess that I was thown because BB linked his comment thru to DA's piece about gay Monty and not the riposte to the MoS. Whatever else his sins, Baghdad Dave still wins hands down in the ongoing debate about the appropriate pause between public grief and sexual congress. Given a choice, would you rather your sister/daughter worked in an office with (a) a man who paws her thighs and gropes her arse or (b) a man who has consensual sex in private an hour or two after a public ceremony?
I think that the point is that the kind of man who does b) is quite likely to also be the kind of man who does a)
From the Good News Catechism (Updated 2006):
Q: When is it permissible to perform an act of procreation after an act of public grieving? What are the moral dangers inherent in couplation after such an occasion?
A: Chossing the moment of connubial congress is a matter for the conscience of the faithful unless:
i) The word Iraq is involved
ii) The fornicator should find support from the infidel Aaronovitch
Under such conditions, even an Act of Contrition will not save the fornicator. Making a meal of an uninspiring Italian sandwich might knock a few years off purgatory, though...
Post a Comment
<< Home