Ambiguous headlines

I saw a headline in the New York Times this morning.

It read: "Hatred He Bred Is Sure to Survive Terrorist's Death"

Seeing as how this was the day for stories on Tom DeLay's departure
speech, full of his usual bile to the last, and on Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi,
who went down more literally, but also due to being betrayed by his
allies who couldn't abide by his excesses, I found myself wondering
to which terrorist the headline was referring.

As it turned out, the headline was for a story on Al-Zarqawi. Considering
the damage he did in the House of Representatives and beyond, it seems to
me the headline would have been no less accurate referring, if only
metaphorically, to the end of Tom DeLay's career in the House. The hatred
bred by both of them in their respective milieus will indeed survive for
a long time to come.

Unlike Zarqawi, "The Bugman" is an organization man to the bitter end.

DeLay would never have had to leave if the rest of the Republicans in the House
had really wanted him to hang around. In this election year, he was just too much
of a lightning rod calling attention to all that is wrong with their party. He
left because some of his less brazen peers wanted him out--just like with Al-Zarqawi.

You're right about one thing, though--in the resurrection from his political grave
on Capitol Hill to his new life on K Street, he will stay the organization man he was.

"Commentary: Death is good news but..."

My reaction was "Fuck you!!! you immoral fascist corporate media braindead fuckwads! DEATH IS NOT GOOD NEWS, no matter whose death it is! STOP BRAINWASHING the proles unto thinking that all this death and destruction is GOOD NEWS!"

KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING IS NEVER GOOD NEWS!!!

Douchebags...

I can see that.

The article meant to refer to Al-Zarqawi, but I immediately
thought of our own Bush Lite. The hatred sewn by this administration
will long outlive its demise.

As for death being "good news," that's the way they think these days.
Just look at the Texas record of executions under Bush. That should
give you a clear indication as to how they think about the issue.

To the radical right, it's only "us against them," and any time one of
"them" meets their end, it's "good news," and they do not distinguish
between crazed killers like Zarqawi or pacifists like Paul Wellstone.
Oh, they'll jubilate over Zarqawi and say "such a shame" about Wellstone
in public, but in private or on their own websites, their reaction
is pretty much the same: when one of "them" is gone, it's good.