Using the Hannibal Lecter Principle to identify the Republican candidates

[Donnachaidh]

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/laura-harrison-mcbride/39247/using-the-hannibal-lecter-principle-to-identify-the-republican-candidates

I used to write a “lowly paid” column about ethics for a nominally unaligned online newspaper that turned out to be right of Genghis Khan’s center. In short order, the “opportunity” had turned into a nightmare in which I had to field excessive and abusive commentary from that organization’ core constituency, right-wing zealots who make Ann Coulter look sane and balanced, and some of the more gormless right-wing writers on the site itself.

No matter. Perhaps those articles have enlightened someone, which was my intention to begin with, not―lord knows―getting rich on the internet via pay-per-click.

In those columns, I dealt with ethical concepts, one of which was touched upon by Matt Taibbi in his recent Rolling Stone article about his first glimpse of a presidential wannabe, Rick Perry: The Best Little Whore in Texas. Wrote Taibbi:

…voters who want to know who Rick Perry really is would do well to remember the advice of noted political analyst Hannibal Lecter, who instructed Jodie Foster about the serial killer she was tracking in The Silence of the Lambs. What does he do, Lecter asked, this man you seek? He kills women? No, that is incidental. Don't look at what the man does, look at what he is.

More at the link --

[CarmanK]

1. Great Article!! Rick Perry is scary, because he has duped so many

for so very long a period of time. and for the last 10 years, he has in fact carried out the Norquist, Rove, agenda of putting america up for sale to the highest bidder. OWS has come none too soon.

[Marazinia]

2. Good article

I disagree with some of it. I wouldn't necessarily refuse to vote for someone based on the way they grieve, nor would I refuse to vote for someone based solely on their religion.

I completely agree with this:

Still, the smirk should have been a clue. Various online dictionaries define the expression as, “An affected, often offensively self-satisfied smile,” or, “a smile expressing scorn, smugness, etc., rather than pleasure.” That’s George. And we didn’t get it. Republicans still don’t get it, except those who DO get it.


If ever a smirk begging to be punched off someone's face existed, it belongs to GW Bush. Just the sight of his smug ugly face was infuriating.

I also disagree that the founders were good. They were land stealing, slave owning, genocidal men who refused to repay their debts. They failed to honor in good faith the IOUs of the rank and file Revolutionary War soldiers. In fact, the first incidence of our government crapping on our veterans took place just after the end of the Revolutionary War.

So far as I can tell, the only European immigrants I would have been proud to keep company with, had I been born in that time period, were the Quakers. They were, for the most part, honorable and decent people.

[Recursion]

3. Ghengis Khan established the first race- and religion-neutral civil service in human history

Just got to stuck up for Ghengis there...