Esquire has been around since 1933, which means it took almost exactly 93 years for it to reach the absolute bottom of the barrel.
A new “article” in the men’s magazine—check it out and you’ll see why it barely counts as an article—attacks Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal with a piece saying he should be jabbed in the manhood for suggesting male parents matter.
Charles Pierce’s article is headlined “Please Punch This Man in the Dick” and the opening graf says about Jindal:“There is no national tragedy that this charlatan cannot make worse.”
Why is Esquire so upset that they are urging readers to inflict bodily harm on a sitting, properly elected Governor?
Because Bobby Jindal suggested that the absence of fathers might negatively impact their children.
Here’s exactly what Gov. Jindal said that made Equire so irate that they suggest cold-cocking him :
Now, let’s get really politically incorrect here and talk specifically about this horror in Oregon. This killer’s father is now lecturing us on the need for gun control and he says he has no idea how or where his son got the guns. Of course he doesn’t know. You know why he doesn’t know? Because he is not, and has never been in his son’s life. He’s a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public. He’s the problem here. He brags that he has never held a gun in his life and that he had no idea that his son had any guns. Why didn’t he know? Because he failed to raise his son. He should be ashamed of himself, and he owes us all an apology.
Esquire’s depraved scribe Charles Pierce offers no explanation at all about why this statement is offensive, much less wrong. There’s no analysis of statistics that might prove Jindal wrong. There isn’t a theoretical argument made about why criticizing the killer’s absentee father is out of bounds. There’s…nothing. Jindal’s statement alone is apparently so outrageous to Pierce that he quotes Jindal and then says:
This’ll be good for at least a three-point bump in the next poll of Iowa Republicans. However, would I be uncivil if I were to suggest that somebody punch this man right in his dick?
Welcome to American Journalism pre-2016 election cycles: where a mainstream publication’s headline can blare Please Punch This Man in the Dick about a Republican candidate seeking the presidential nomination for the crime of stating that a father who wasn’t involved in his murderous son’s life might not be the best spokesman for gun control.
Charles Pierce is a paid, professional writer who collects his check this week for vomiting out a pile of letters with a headline that would be emberassing if an 11-year-old boy wrote it.
Or is that uncivil of me?