Screech E. Goldstein and the Lone Wolf from Southpaw
Published by punkass marc July 10th, 2006 in Blogitics, Fiction, WankersOnce upon a time, there lived a timid, scatterbrained propagandist named Screech. All day Screech scrawled on the walls of his Creamy Palace, eating paste and complaining of his life as a “hausfrau,” which is pixie-speak for “intellectual failure.”
One day, a big, bad wolf from Southpaw came to Screech’s Palace dressed as a teacher from the Arid Zone.
“Hello, Screech! I’m a friendly teacher,” said the wolf in teacher’s clothing. “Won’t you let me in to draw on your walls with you and your happy ejaculates?”
Screech thought long and hard, for it was difficult for him to make much sense. Of anything. Eventually, though, he let the teacher in to play amongst his wriggily minions and doodle on the Creamy Palace.
Big mistake.
Once inside, the wolf exposed herself and began howling menacingly at Screech. The wolf then licked its lips at the sight of Screech’s favorite sperm, the one on which he sprinkled stork droppings to make a full-fledged child. The wolf’s growls at the child were particularly scary, and Screech decided it was best to bust a nut and call the Cashew Kids, Pecan People, and Flying Macademias to his side.
Just as Screech cracked open the alarm’s shell, the wolf took another nasty swipe at him. She then apologized to draw Screech closer before making another attack. This string of clever, vicious maneuvers was working until the Army of Nuts arrived to provide reinforcements.
They rounded up all the colored chalk they could find and began scribbling powerful magical runes on the sidewalks around the Creamy Palace to cow her into submission. Before long, the wolf was defeated, reduced to a jibbering, jobless fool.
The nuts weren’t satisfied, though. Their oils bubbling over with battlelust, they turned their attention to everyone like the wolf. No, they didn’t go after other wolves; there weren’t enough of them to sate their cravings. Instead, the nuts talked themselves into believing that every creature in the town of Southpaw was responsible for this attack.
“Why haven’t other Southpaws spoken out against this wolf?” cried Yanker Fednut. He cared nothing for their inability to read every drawing on the Creamy Palace. Yanker Fednut was disgusted by their lack of vigilance.
“Yeah,” sneered Der Commienut. “I know lots of ‘paws who’ve smeared Screech before. None of them did anything like this, and here’s the painstakingly-assembled evidence to prove it. If you think about it, this means they all did it!”
Even the other nuts were confused by this logic, but once a nut hoists itself up in a moment of passion, its violent discharge pays reason no heed. Angry Shivernut spoke for the lot of them by arguing that the massacre of Southpaws was an inevitability. “So let’s get to it!” he cried.
And with that, the nuts charged towards Southpaw.
As they rounded the hill and came upon the village, the Southpaw watchman sounded the warning. Soon all of Southpaws defenders lined up to oppose the nutty assault.
“One of your wolves tried to attack Screech’s child!” called a nut. “We demand justice!”
The Southpaws listened to the story, nodding their heads in agreement. In unison they spoke.
“We disapprove of this attack. Strongly.”
Sadly, nuts don’t have ears. They hear only what they want to hear.
“Did you listen to that?” squealed Yanker Fednut. “They’re alllll guilty!”
And so the nuts drew their chalk and began furiously sketching for victory. Fortunately, the bravest soldiers from Southpaw had a few powerful tricks up their sleeves. The well-tanned wizard Retardo Montalban cast his anti-hypocrisy spell. TBogg, the mighty stallion, rose up majestically over the nuts to show them the tiny nature of their complaint. Gavin M. from the Southpaw berg of York reflected a mighty mirror into the eyes of the nuts, casting their own evils back at them.
The attack was vanquished, and the nuts scattered about the ground in defeat.
Brad R. from the Council of Defiant Elders scooped up all the nuts and reminded them of three important facts. “First,” explained Brad “remember that this wolf was a lone wolf. It acted alone and without our knowledge. Second, many of us, once we received word of her attack, condemned it, despite what you wanted to hear. And finally, remember that Screech has bared his own teeth in a manner suggestive of sexual assault to others in the past. Is this really a reasonable battle you fight today?”
To put the cherry on top, Amanda the Panda reminded them that some Southpaws receive vicious threats from unidentified creatures on a regular basis, but no one holds all nuts or Goldsteins responsible for these criminal acts.
And with that, the nuts were through. Their lust had been spent, and they felt foolish for getting so worked up.
So over the hills they went, the Walnut Astorias, the Mustachioed Pistachios, and the Almond Brothers.
When they passed the Creamy Palace, Screech scurried out to hear the news of Southpaw’s demise. The nuts knew Screech was a fragile creature, prone to fits of despair. They looked at one another and replied, “Yep. We got ‘em. We got ‘em good, Screech.” And they all sat down with a plate of Elmer’s to celebrate and live vaguely dissatisfied ever after.
32 Responses to “Screech E. Goldstein and the Lone Wolf from Southpaw”
- 1 Pingback on Jul 11th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
- 2 Pingback on Jul 12th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Shyamalanesque.
Oh, I don’t know. I couldn’t figure out the “surprise” ending from the previews.
Ouch! I hold all populists responsible for that insult.
Though if you adapt for one of his movies, Marc, make Goldstein an eerie child that gives people the creeps.
But then I can’t insult _him_.
Apparently it’s only gross when you say this shit about kids.
Ya know, you can point out again and again what you have said, but it won’t change some peoples minds. They read what they want to read, even if you do put it in large font, neon colors, bold, italics, and blinking quotes.
And they claim they want a “dialogue”…
And finally, remember that Screech has bared his own teeth in a manner suggestive of sexual assault to others in the past. Is this really a reasonable battle you fight today?”
The difference is we have now stooped below them. By stating this over and over again, we are not only defending her words, but saying it’s okay to attack children. And I thought we were better than that. So yes, Jeff may have said some really nasty things and will continue to do so, but they were always directed at adults, he never crossed the line and directed them at someone’s child. Not only was that line crossed, but it’s being defended because he has said nasty things.
Some defense.
Angie,
“We” are _not_ saying its ok. “We” are saying that the battle (the one clearly meant in my quote when you include the other 2 points conveniently omitted) is the battle to pin this on every single liberal, not the one to shame this one woman for her comment. Sheesh.
I couldn’t have put it in any bigger font (thanks to my stylesheet):
We disapprove of this attack. Strongly.
And by “this attack,” I clearly meant the one on Jeff’s kid.
Why are you letting them pin this on you?
I am still stunned by this statement, honestly: “The difference is we have now stooped below them.”
How did “we” have anything to do with this woman? Why are you lumping you and me in with her? And why can’t I say that it’s wrong to do that?
Is this a superiority trip here? Are you feeling like you’re extra-condemning it somehow?
So yes, Jeff may have said some really nasty things and will continue to do so, but they were always directed at adults, he never crossed the line and directed them at someone’s child. Not only was that line crossed, but it’s being defended because he has said nasty things.
Since when is it morally acceptable to threaten sexual assault on anybody, adult or child? Are we really defending the right to only sexually threaten adults?
Angie, I’m sorry you feel as if you actually typed the threats on Jeff’s child, but I refuse to accept the idea that what someone else writes I have to be responsible for. We have repeatedly said this type of violation of reasonable discourse should be abhorred and shunned. I’ve gone to PW before, and despite trading a few insults with Jeff, I never once threatened him or anybody with anything violent or inhuman. I am not part of your “we.”
What the hell could a liberal do to Goldstein’s children that he himself will not end up doing to them one day anyway? As the saying goes, The Arc of Wingnuts is long and bends inexorably towards pedophilia.
Threatening to not kidnap and give away Jeff Goldstein’s children to a caring childless couple is a crueller thing imho, for the children at any rate, taking away Goldstein’s socially acceptable abuse victims would be a cruel act indeed to do to poor little jeffy-poo.
Let me clarify — have you read comments others (left-leaning folks like us) are saying about this? They start off with a, I don’t approve with what she said, then they add a “but” if he didn’t do such and such, or “well he has said nasty things as well”, or “he brought it upon himself”, etc etc etc. So they in a sense soften their “I don’t approve of what she said” by trying to justify what she said. Know what I mean? Like she had her reasons based on his actions. Instead of just sticking with — I dont’ approve of what she said and leaving it as that.
And when I say “we”, I am talking in general terms yes. Perhaps not you personally, but many others are doing just that. Making light of an attack on a child. Children are the one level we should not ever have a “but” to when defending them. No matter the politics of others.
If Jeff and co. had left it at “this lady sucks,” so would I. Once they turn her into the Iconic Liberal, though, and blame all of us for her mistake, I have to resist that.
Look at the wingnut posts I linked to — they actually blame the collective left for this one woman’s actions. It’s ridiculous. We shouldn’t foster that, nor should we feel guilty for protecting ourselves from such insinuations. It does nothing to detract from her comment being condemned — nor, really, does contextualizing it against the vast array of their previous improprieties.
Ang, I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but what we have here is a guy elevating one woman’s unhinged statements on the internet into actual threats of bodily harm to his child. It’s disgusting and uncalled for, yes, but welcome to the shithole we call the Internet. If you blog, if you have some modicum of popularity, and if you have a posted email address, you’ve probably gotten much worse than what Jeff got. And if he was seriously worried about anything other than his credibility, he would have pressed charges.
That said, I’m pleased to find that I can string together a sentence better than a PhD, lunatic or not.
In other words, if you worry that someone is threatening or stalking your family, it doesn’t end when they resign from their job. This wasn’t about being stalked, it was about winning the cock-slapping wars, a “war” quite easily won, in fact.
Why is it liberals always feel the need to apologize for existing? We do so instinctively because we’re human beings and not conservatives, but after someone lectures you enough times for not turning the other cheek so they can smack you across the face again, you have to stop playing their stupid little game.
Punkass,
“contextualizing it against the vast array of their previous improprieties.”
So you are in favor of contextualizing (something) against the vast array of their [wingnut] improprieties, but, as written in your post, you are adamantly opposed to contextualizing anything against the vast array of your [moonbat] improprieties.
I think that’s more than fair on your part.
Dude. Don’t be mad b/c I totally pwned you. You know none of us had anything to do with her comment crossing the line. None of the posts you linked to did anything of the sort, which only proved our case.
Commissar, since you clearly feel that we are responsible for what anyone who claims to be liberal says, you’ve obviously taken personal responsiblity for anything any right winger does, up to and including people who set fire to crosses to “send a message”.
Dude, punkass marc, don’t you realize pointing out that some wingnut is a paste-eating moron is totally the same thing as threatening his kid? You’re just not playing fair, dude, and that’s what this comes down to.
Sigh. I can only hope to avoid a clockslapping at sentencing.
Remember that time some people were talked into the “fact” that 9/11 had something to do with Iraq?
Professor Frisch got carried away by a malicious groove, apologized, and resigned in atonement. That’s fair enough for me, allowing as for how I wasn’t the injured party.
I mean, since all lefties believe that there is no terrorist threat to the U.S., and even if there is we surely must deserve it, this single instance of taking personal responsibility for some idle death threats must be treasured for the tiny, rare, exceptional gem that it is.
/generalizing
Shorter Inspector: I’d rather be too scared than not scared at all. I’d rather dodge responsibility for creating even more future terrorists via our failing Middle East policies than accept it. And somehow this means lib’ruls never take personal responsibility.
Okay, it was the same length, but it sure is clearer. And yet no less nonsensical.
Well, yeah Inspector. There aren’t a whole lot of truly liberal people making apologies for death threats because they’re not really a majority on this side of the aisle.
On the other hand, conservatives wring their hands constantly at the thought that they might have carelessly offended someone, the poor dears.
Did jeb bush ever recant his support for the minute men and their neo-nazi membership?
Ang, I haven’t seen many people trying to justify or defend this woman’s statements, they’re sick. Pointing out what a vile asshole Goldstein is and how he loves to wallow in the Internet sewer and even allegedly published the real life contact information of someone whose two year old was subject to sexualized slurs at Goldstein’s site doesn’t justify what she did. It may bring up the question of why he’s not going to face any consequences for his behavior while she’s unemployed, but they’re two independent cases and can be judged independently. The fact that someone’s an asshole doesn’t mean that they deserve horrible things and whatever anyone does to them is okay, but by the same token if something bad’s being done to you to you that doesn’t absolve you of moral responsibility for your actions, either. One has nothing to do with the other.