Okay, I know it was only last night that I said I'm bowing out of political discussions for at least the next week and a half, but that was before I learned of this via my friend Bill at INDCJournal:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Note: emphasis added.

I'll express my reaction by posting the email I wrote to The Guardian in response to this article:

I'm stunned. I can understand people vehemently disagreeing with U.S. policies, and hoping for his defeat in the election next week. It illustrates the irrationality, and at least in this case, utter deficit of moral responsibility, to advocate the assassination of the President of the United States.

That Charlie Brooker would think such a thing is bad enough. That he writes it down, and then The Guardian publishes it, is absolutely reprehensible. The Guardian is morally bankrupt.

I have no doubt that my reaction will not faze you in the slightest. But you must know that those who follow a moral code of honesty, integrity and respect for the lives of others hold your organization in disgusted contempt.

This was exactly my point last night. The total disconnect with rationality and morality by some have shocked me. And should shock you. I can only hope that what I'm seeing is skewed toward the irrational.

That those who occupy the same political quarters don't declaim and shun these lunatics is what scares me, though. I thought it was bad enough when people started seeing fraud in every politically-based action, and the shrill shrieks started pervading the atmosphere. Now we have someone advocating assassination of the President of the United States. Where will it stop?

Update: The Guardian has replaced the target of the above link with the following:

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

I'm heartened that The Guardian is responsive to its readers, but I still have a couple of problems:

1. The reaction shouldn't have come as a surprise to The Guardian's editorial staff. Brooker's statement was more than "flippant and tasteless," it was immoral and irresponsible. I have to question the judgment of an editor that can't perceive that without reader feedback.

2. Sorry, Charlie. You can't tout that "ironic joke" crap 'round these parts. You pulled back the veil from your hatred and immorality, got called on it, and hauled out the tap shoes to give us a little dance. You see, we Americans (especially we Texans) aren't nearly as stupid as you think we are.

You pretentious twit.

Update 2: The Commissar explains how this is just a matter of conservatives not being able to comprehend liberal humor, and posits a solution to the confusion.

Da, comrade. We are just too hate-ridden and power-hungry to understand that wacky liberal sense of humor.