Which might be a way of saying shit floats.
I'm sorry (literally) but I always liked the guy. I liked him when he was the "ogre" judge on the "Got Talent" shows and didn't dislike him for all the times he feigned amazement and delight at mediocre talentless morons. After all, he couldn't hate everyone and still hold the job.
His priggish put-ons and his humor (never, "If I'm honest," too witty, but at least heterosexual) somehow led to his replacing Larry King on CNN. People hated him, and Americans roared with disgust over Morgan's demands for gun control.
Now? The poor guy is merely a columnist for the London Daily Fail!
He must, MUST, keep that pathetic job by being some kind of provocateur and wit. OK, provocateur he can handle. And so he writes, tongue-in-somewhere, that Americans should consider having a monarchy:
Morgan continues (doesn't he!):
"In the 10 years I've lived here, I've never seen anything to rival the adulation, attention and respect this family engenders.
If I want to make a dinner party in LA, Chicago, Dallas or New York come to a shuddering, silent, awe-struck halt then I start loudly regaling all my royal stories.
...Consider having a constitutional Monarchy. Think about the benefits:
- They're non-political, unelected heads of state. Why is this good? Because it means they're never campaigning, never lobbying, never engaged in petty Washington squabbles, never forcing unpalatable policies down your throats.
- They make a ton of money. The British Monarchy brings in billions of dollars, helping to sustain our economy in a plethora of areas mostly connected to tourism.
- They're a spectacularly effective comfort blanket in good times and bad; whether we're cooing over their weddings or babies, or seeking solace from their non-partisan stoicism and support in times of war, conflict and tragedy.
- They provide a constant, unwavering symbol of national identity. In a fast-changing, volatile world, the stability this brings is incalculable in its value.
- They offer a barrier to corruption because they're already super-rich and never have to make decisions based on short-term greed or naked lust for power and money.
He went on to declare how wonderful it is to have a Queen:
Contrast with some of the philandering, corrupt, war-mongering or plain useless presidents that America has elected over the period of her six-decade reign and you'll start to see why a Monarchy makes more sense.
The thing I like best about the Queen is the quiet authority she wields over our democratic process.
She's never given a press interview. (Her indomitable mother once described the secret to being a successful royal as this: 'Never complain, never explain, and rarely be heard speaking in public.')
But each week, the British Prime Minister has a one-hour private meeting with Her Majesty in which he or she has to explain what their government is up to, and on occasion justify it.
Imagine if President Obama had to answer to someone like that every Tuesday? Someone he knew had done the same with everyone from Kennedy to Nixon, Reagan to Clinton – so had heard it all, seen it all, and learned from it all?
(Walter Cronkite would have been a great American king, right?)
Washington is paralysed, vested interest groups like the NRA bully Congress into supine silence, and opposition parties spend most of their time belittling and abusing each other rather than focusing on the interests of their country or its citizens.
As William and Kate dazzle the East Coast this week, I simply ask Americans to consider how much better or worse your country would be with a dash of this Monarchical magic yourselves?
Happily the "comments" from the London Daily Failers (who read Piers' silliness all the time) has been a solid cry of "Morgan gets paid to write this rubbish?"
Which I'm sure has him laughing all the way to the bank, and checking his Tweets, and chortling over how many millions of followers he has.
Of course we already HAVE an American version of William, Kate and baby. It's Kanye, Kim and "North West." We have plenty of variations (mutations) too.
There's really no shortage of entertainers who travel the world, adopt babies, give speeches, wave to the poor, sing for charity, etc. etc. Angelina Jolie springs to mind. We have Bono and Broooose and so many more. Why settle for a pair of twits who can't even sing, dance, tell a joke, or adopt some niglets rather than grow some new inbred idiots? Wouldn't William and Kate be more in tune with the New Great Britain if, like Mayor De Blasio, their children were half-black? Hell, they could be ALL black. Just ask Madonna where to filch a few. Kate could bring back several stowaways from her jaunt into Harlem.
Oh, I've got lots of ideas. My problem is I'm TOO much of a fuckin' provocateur to be hired by the London Daily Fail. It irks me that I'll never see a tweet from Piers Morgan saying, "My favorite guilty pleasure is the Disgusted by Amusement blog..."
The chance of me becoming the American Royal Piers is looking for, is nil. And despite his vain (in every sense of the word) attempt at improving the world, it remains, like me, quite ill.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.