Conservative support for kittens?
I’d like to draw your attention to August J. Pollak, who asks: would pro-Bush bloggers (I call them Royalists) stop supporting the President if “Bush killed a kitten”:http://www.xoverboard.com/blogarchive/week_2006_01_15.html#001594 with a hammer? And if so, is there an upper limit beyond which kitten-braining becomes intolerable?
Let’s remember that this crowd includes folks who like to “fantasize about fellow Americans being beheaded in Iraq”:http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/12/headhunters.php, so you might at first be inclined to say that the pro-Bush contingent would have no problem with a hammer-only program of feline population control. But August adds an unnatural restriction, in my opinion:
bq. You are not to assume the kitten needs to die, is already dying, or has a reason to require being killed with a hammer by the President.
This is really unfair of August; it’s vital to the Royalist worldview that they believe whoever is killed or tortured in the War on Terror(tm) is in some way a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.
I think that makes the whole enterprise suspect; even if someone *claims* they won’t support the President if he kills a kitten, they probably would when it came right down to it. They’d just say it was an Al Qaeda kitten and probably working for Howard Dean, even if they knew, deep in their hearts, that it was just a defenseless kitten.
You can “read the survey here”:http://www.xoverboard.com/blogarchive/week_2006_01_15.html#001594. There are “already a few responses”:http://www.xoverboard.com/deadkittensurvey/ — and one death threat.
*Update: two minutes later:* the outrage expressed on “this comment thread here”:http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=127 is almost worth the price of admission. I think these folks believe their own straw men.
