Weekly Jackass Number Nineteen: Terry Jones
Terry Jones is rightfully considered a comic legend for his work with Monty Python, and I’m a big fan of that work. Jones also doubles as an occasional columnist for the Guardian and an author, and I’m not a fan at all of that work. Jones puts on the same airs in much of this work as the Python fellows did, trying to lend an air of absurdity to the War On Terror and the Iraqi liberation, and I’m sure the Kossacks and their ilk are laughing it up. After we sample a few choice excerpts, I think you’ll understand why I’m not even cracking a smile.
Here’s Jones on the devestating tsunami that tugged at the world’s heart:
I am bewildered by the world reaction to the tsunami tragedy. Why are newspapers, television and politicians making such a fuss? Why has the British public forked out more than �100m to help the survivors, and why is Tony Blair now promising “hundreds of millions of pounds”? Why has Australia pledged �435m and Germany �360m? And why has Mr Bush pledged �187m?Of course it’s wonderful to see the human race rallying to the aid of disaster victims, but it’s the inconsistency that has me foxed. Nobody is making this sort of fuss about all the people killed in Iraq, and yet it’s a human catastrophe of comparable dimensions.
According to the only scientific estimate attempted, Iraqi deaths since the war began number more than 100,000. The tsunami death toll is in the region of 150,000. Yet in the case of Iraq, the media seems reluctant to impress on the public the scale of the carnage.
Where to begin with excrement like this? Well, the 100,000: this is a widely discredited figure from a vastly flawed study that has been absolutely dismantled in numerous pieces such as this one…next, the source of the civilian deaths (probably 1/10th what Jones claims) has become almost exclusively terrorists. Thus, since Jones by his own admission wants to help the people in Iraq as much as the tsunami victims, he should be pounding the pavements rounding up support for those opposed to the terrorists (i.e., the Coalition). But no, it’s easier to demonize our side that actually try to help theirs, eh, Terry?
Now, Jones is hitting the stump promoting his new book ridiculing the War on Terror, and here’s the kind of trenchant analysis we can expect to see if we shell out the bucks:
Jones doesn’t shy away from disagreeing with the current Washington wisdom being bruited about: that, with the end of Saddam’s regime, the Iraqi elections, and recent demonstrations in Lebanon, going to war in Iraq was the right decision.
The status of democracy in Iraq is still tenuous, he says, and regardless, the end can’t justify the means.
“Is it worth all the destruction of the infrastructure? Worth all the deaths? It’s a question you can’t answer,” he says.
What is it, really, with the short-term focus of the Radical Left? If 10,000 die so that millions can have a better future, that’s not worth it? Infrastructure? What’s infrastructure, in the grand scheme of history? You can answer the question, Terry: Yes! Yes! Emphatically, yes! It is worth it; and you can help end the deaths if you get on board with the right side in the here and now.
My final excerpt (I can’t take much more of this idiocy) is from Jones’s newest column:
A report to the UN human rights commission in Geneva has concluded that Iraqi children were actually better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now.This, of course, comes as a bitter blow for all those of us who, like George Bush and Tony Blair, honestly believe that children thrive best when we drop bombs on them from a great height, destroy their cities and blow up hospitals, schools and power stations.
It now appears that, far from improving the quality of life for Iraqi youngsters, the US-led military assault on Iraq has inexplicably doubled the number of children under five suffering from malnutrition. Under Saddam, about 4% of children under five were going hungry, whereas by the end of last year almost 8% were suffering.
Of course, the report proved nothing of the kind, even if we accept its statistics as accurate. Jones claims it says Iraqi children are worse off; what it says it that the malnutrition rate has doubled, and of course, that is a terrible thing. Isn’t it expected, though, in a war zone, as horrible as it is for the children involved? The broader point, and the reason the children aren’t worse off, is this:
The 92% who aren’t suffering from malnutrition, and those of the 8% who get help and survive, now actually have a future in front of them, instead of life under the thumb of a brutal tyrant; a few among them will even someday rule their country, a privilege that will be granted not from nepotism, but from democratic elections. I say it again, Terry: Yes, it’s worth it! Very much so…
Terry knows better, though; he knows we could have avoided this whole awful mess, if we had just exposed the Iraqi children to Monty Python…think I’m kidding? Here’s the end of the CNN piece:
Python, on the other hand, leaves a more positive legacy, he says. He tells a story about an inner-city schoolteacher who noticed that Python skits had a softening effect on his rough students’ behavior.
“Instead of the kids being bullies, they would go around being silly,” he says.
Oh, if only Saddam were still in power, with all that grand infrastructure in place, and the Iraqi kids were running around being silly while their parents lived in fear…what a great world that would be! This Weekly Jackass award is quite well deserved…truly disgusting. Mr. Jones, you ought to be ashamed…
UPDATE 04/15 8:41 a.m. central: Thanks to the great Tim Blair and the esteemed Dr. Shackleford for the links – a nice start to my birthday…look around and stay a while, folks, good to have you here…
“Which one was he?”
Bedevere, my liege. The one always having to mess with his face guard.
Terry Jones usually had some of the least-funny parts in the Python productions, but I think he was one of the main writers/directors, so still should be given credit for the MP humor.
It makes me sick to think what an idiot he is in real life.
A “question that can’t be answered”?
Sounds to me that Jones realizes that this is a question he doesn’t want to answer rather that one that can’t be. What is so hard about saying “no, it wasn’t worth it” (especially if one believes 100,000+ people died and if one places such a high value on infrastructure) unless Jones really does believe it was worth it but can bring himself to say so. Maybe a kernel of honesty struggling to get out.
Actually, Cleese, Chapman, Palin, Idle and Gilliand were the funny ones. Oh, and Carol Cleveland. Jones always struck me more as the Gummo (never quite worked his way up to Zeppo)…
As for that teacher, I hope she gets out of the room before her students get to The Dirty Vicar Sketch…
Ella, you can call me an idiot, but stop screaming, won’t you? Maybe some day you’ll understand that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were evil, despotic regimes. Greetings from America…
Fargus: How about “The War on Ba’athism, Jihadism, Stalinism and Miscellaneous Psychos?”
Hmm. I grew up loving MP, but I’m having trouble remembering which one was Jones. By process of elimination, he’s not the dead one, or the American, or the train guy, or John Cleese or Eric Idle. Which one was he?
I think we have spotted the Loony.
I’m just waiting for the Iraqi comedians to start up. That would be a sign that Iraq is really moving forward. And when that happens..they will I’m sure laugh at those dumfucks.
If Mr. Jones would like to see damaged infrastructure, perhaps someone could forward some pictures of Berlin, Hamburg, Dresded, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki circa 1945 to him.
THEN we can talk about infrasturcture.
Just a quick nitpicky thing. About the number of civilian deaths in Iraq, isn’t the study sort of like the one about the liberals and conservatives in educational fields? Methods are faulty, so no one can prove anything on any side? I’m just wondering if it isn’t as fallacious for you to claim that it was probably a tenth of what the article claims as for it to have claimed anything in the first place.
The other thing, the thing that I do agree with Terry Jones on, is just the wording of the thing. The War on Terror. It’s like the War on Jealousy. As it’s defined, it’s not a war that can be won, and it feels like (just in terms of terminology, nothing to do with ideology or belief in its cause) so much propagandistic nonsense. Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Peace, War on Terror, you know? It’s something which is inherently meaningless as a term, and I don’t mind that absurdity being pointed out.
Michael, this link has a good picture of Jones.
No, Pam. Terry Gilliam, the American in the group, did the cartoons and only appeared in a few sketches.
Oops…thanks for the clarification, Jim!
Right on Fargus, I’ve been saying to everyone that will listen that the Cold War can’t be won either, so we should just give it up. Oh wait..
THANKS TO SUCH IDIOTS AS YOU GUYS AND YOUR DEAR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. THIS WORLD ISN’T A BORING PLACE.I REALLY HOPE ONE DAY YOU’LL UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY WAR IS HELL.
GREETINGS FROM POLAND.
Thanks, Coffey, I thought to Google him after the coffee kicked in.
Never thought he was good for more than one character-type: the stammering, overwhelmed bloke, usually with pinched mouth and a moustache.
The next time someone asks you what harm the U.N. does… (as in… sure it doesn’t do that much good, but it’s a noble idea, and after all, what harm does it cause…)
It’s this. It’s the ludicrous, pulled-out-of-one’s-nether-regions, anti-semitic, anti-American, moonbat nonsense that gets the U.N.’s stamp of approval, and thus becomes the basis of arguments like this.
“A report to the U.N. Human Rights commission…” It shouldn’t be possible for any sane, rational human being to be sure that the sun still rises in the East if that’s asserted by such a report.
This specific report has already been thoroughly fisked elsewhere, but the highlights are: the 4% figure is the official Baathist line and the 8% figure is the first accurate assessment — immediately after the invasion (April 2003). Does no one remember Baghdad Bob? Or Saddam’s referendum? The invasion began on March 20th, 2003 — malnutrition in April was the fault of the U.S. invasion?! Numbers from two years ago are still relevant to anything at all?
The War on Terror is a bad name indeed, but even W is afraid of actually coming out and saying the War Against Islamofascist Terrorists because it’s not PC…which is what this is really all about.
Entertainers for the most part feel the need to rebel against the status quo, against anything that remotely smacks of bourgeoisie; and so they come out against such things as war because it’s so “common,” so “vulgar.” Of course, entertainers usually lead vulgar lives (just look at Michael Jackson), but they have a separate set of standards for themselves. How special!
Terry Jones did the cartoons that you see in MP, and his participation in the skits was usually somewhat minor.
the wolf
This has nothing to do with Canadian currency.
uh, that’s Dresden
Well, my only point was that a “War on Terror,” such as it is, cannot be won, because we can’t send military might against an idea. We fight wars against people. As a rhetorical device, and that’s all I’m saying, not as an actual thing, the words “War on Terror” are as silly as the “War on Poverty” or the “War on Drugs.” We don’t encounter heavily armed encampments of crystal meth, do we?
Why is it always the funny, talented ones that have such warped political views?
You’re probably right that I shouldn’t claim the casualties were a tenth what the study said without backup…I plead guilty to that infraction. Just out of curiousity, though, what would you replace ‘the War on Terror’ with? The War on al-Queda is too narrow…and I think one of the reasons to declare ‘war’ on something so abstract is to focus energies on a process, you know? Anyway, the name isn’t as ridiculous as the criticisms of Jones…