Can't have it both ways: the 'Cataloonies'
I don't have much of a problem with the term 'Cataloony'. But it does seem to be something of a handy shortcut past debating an issue which concerns a large minority of people here. John at Iberian Notes, 'expat wanker' according to a fan, loves using 'Cataloony' to describe any Catalan who dislikes the king of Spain or wants more independence for Catalonia. Statistically, some of those people probably are lunatics, so he probably scores a couple of hits with his scattershot.
The problem is, if I use the terms 'dumb Yanks' or 'stupid Americans'* to describe American citizens who still support Georgey boy and his gang of no-good rats, then I'm being anti-American. Moi? But calling Catalan nationalists 'loonies' ain't the same thing. See, I get more than a little whiff of hypocrisy from this. So my proposition is simple: either quit using the 'Cataloonies' tag or quit whining when someone has the temerity to insult one of your stupid countrymen (like your stupid president). Name calling is just as clever/silly, whatever side you're on. It's exactly the same thing and you can't have it both ways.
Personally, as someone who believes in freedom of expression, I reckon that John should be able to call Catalan nationalists whatever he likes.
__
*sorry, these names don't quite have the same ring to them as Cataloonies. I'm not a very experienced name caller. It's a short cut to thinking, really, isn't it?
tombcn.com - my blog posts about travel, books, food and music
"So where's the medical care?"
A shameless copy-paste from Armando Ianucci's typically amusing Observer column:
Talking of doubt, last week I had a conversation with a genuine neo-con who didn't have any. He was one of George Bush's former speechwriters and I asked him how he responded to the never-answered complaint from most of us that invading Iraq was senseless, because all the terrorists were in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. His only response was: 'That was then. The question is, what do we do now?' I kept telling him that where we were now was a result of what he did then, but he kept saying: 'No, but what's important is what we do now.' Which is a bit like saying: 'I know I set fire to your house, but can we draw a line under that? What's important now is that I've got a charred hand, so where's the medical care?'
Drawing a line, redefining the issue, re-evaluating the situation in the light of a fresh context; these are all highly sophisticated reverbalisations of: 'I don't know; can we start again?' George W Bush declares progress, even though his definition of progress is to get unbearable violence back to the level it was a year-and-a-half ago. If he goes on redefining phrases to mean around 96 per cent of their opposite, it won't be long before he manages to persuade Americans to think that a 'debacle' is a good thing. Especially if it's an improvement on an outright disaster. Expect soon to have American families celebrate Debacle Day, host Fiasco Barbecues and organise Shambles Carnivals.
Click here to read the original article.
tombcn.com - my blog posts about travel, books, food and music
