Wednesday, March 1, 2006
"Portgate" - for crying out loud
Turns out, though, that the UAE is actually kind of a nifty place - considering it's run by those backward Arabs, I mean. It’s like what Iran was in the days of the Shah. Kind of friendly to the West. A vacation spot for timid Europeans. A first world country, extremely efficiently run. A very close and useful and strategeranius ally – we use their ports and airfields, and, uh, it’s right near, um, Iran. Our spy planes and unmanned aircraft are based there.
Problems? Sure. An autocratic government, but I don’t have a problem with that – it’s not the form of government, but the results of government, that I care about. Limited freedom of speech and press? – yes. Like most of the rest of the world. Like many of our allies. They’re one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban government – when there was a Taliban government, I mean. We recognize Red China but not Taiwan. Hmm. Now they have troops working with ours in Afghanistan. Problems with Israel? – I expect so. Ties to Islamaniacs? – could be. Used as a financial center by the 9/11 ehholes. Well, the UAE does have an open banking system.
So. We have an ally – a good ally, actually – the only substantive objection to which is that they are Arabs. This is an inadequate reason to stop this deal. Do we need proper vetting? Of course. Extra careful? Sure. Is there a risk of a Philby/Ames traitor? Yeah. But among the millions and billions of Mexicans thronging by night over our southern boarder, I imagine there may be an Arab or two in the crowd. We have, effectively, open land boarders. This is, it seems to me, a far greater risk than having some port terminals run by an efficient company owned by an actual we- can- and- will- hold- you- accountable- if- you- screw- up- in- any- way- at- all government.
There is at least one Arab country that has its act pretty much together. And they’re better at running ports than we are. Have we so many friends, that we can afford to cast some away? Shall we spit in the face of a nation, because it is not non-Arab? Hardly a move calculated to encourage moderate Moslems to voice support for moderation. We do not need to placate or mollify - appease - the Arabs. We have done them no offence. Yet. This, it seems to me, is an offence. Not huge, but real. Blaspheme Islam? I have no problem with disliking ideas. But revile a race? Big problem.
Maybe this deal is a bad idea. But the automatic, the knee-jerk reaction is beneath us. That there is caution is a good thing. That there is now a delay, to do further checks, is very reasonable – history, after all, exists. But the tone has been ugly, and that’s not right. It is beneath us. We’re better than that. I will love America, even when it’s wrong. But let’s be right, in this. It isn’t a particular outcome that will make us right. It’s how we get there. Let’s be gracious, even in disagreement.
J
Monday, February 20, 2006
13 x 3: The Worst President
For a time. Until Buchanan's day, when the papers and pulpits, the street corners and general stores, all resounded again with the topic of secession. The crisis was immanent. And at this most perilous moment, a man exquisitely unfit to the task was in the highest office. Nice guy, serious, doing his best. Feckless, useless, impotent. There followed the most costly affray in American history. It's nearly 150 years later, and the scars are still visible. So much for Buchanan.
As for Carter, even at the time we could see something was seriously wrong. I recall that he got on TV and gave a really total downer of a speech, talking about a national malaise - he didn't use that phrase, but that phrase embodies the tone. It may have been another speech, where he talked about how Americans would have to just settle for less, from now on. Can you imagine? The man in the bully pulpit, saying such a thing? God. What a loser. I'm sorry, son, but you are ugly, fat and stupid - you'll just have to settle for an unhappy and unpopular life. Why not just end it all now. And by the way, your mother and I don't love you. And you have B.O.
But that just makes him a bad president, not necessarily the worst. During the hostage crisis in Iran, he authorized a rescue attempt, and then called it off - while the world watched. A helicopter or two gets mechanical problems in the desert, so let's just give up. I mean, someone might get hurt! OK, that's just weak and irresolute - not necessarily the making of the worst president. Then, to "dramatize" the seriousness of the hostage problem, the Pantomime President effectively locked himself in the White House for a year. Wouldn't leave it, hardly - to demonstrate how grave the issue was. The "Rose Garden Strategy." Wouldn't leave his room, and wouldn't eat his supper, either. Little Boy Lost.
He changed emphasis from containing the Soviets (at least as bad as the Nazis), to pushing human rights. Not a bad thing in itself, although he seemed to envision this as abandoning allies, rather than pressuring for change (the Shah, Marcos) - and he funneled millions of dollars into the Sandinista communists ... for some inexplicable reason. But again, this is just politics, right or wrong, and need not make him the worst. He gave the Russians an ultimatum to get/keep their brigades out of Cuba, and when they ignored him ... um ... er ... his spokesperson Emily Litella ("What's all this fuss I keep hearing about rushing bride aides to Cupid?") said, "Oh ... never mind." He did respond to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, by halting wheat sales to the USSR. That really hurt ... the American farmer. And we boycotted the Olympics. Vicious. And really effective. But again, lots of presidents make stupid decisions. By mid-term, unemployment was 11% and inflation 12%. Interest rates were over 20%. But these things happen, one supposes. He castrated the military -- but maybe that was some sort of a stategy. Even today he rushes about the globe endorsing corrupt elections and anti-American dictators. And he does what no president has done in living memory -- undermines the current administration. But that's just his politics -- stupid, and perhaps treacherous, but not at all uncommon from the Left. So what, then. Why is Carter the worst President of the 1900s?
Iran.
Effective action needed to be taken. Immediate, forceful, effective action. A war, if necessary. Some of us could see it then. Now, it should be clear to everyone. Five hundred years of international law thrown out the window by a criminal regime, with impugnity. Iran is the major problem of this era. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was one of the student leaders who invaded our embassy and took the hostages. Now he's pressing for and achieving possession of a nuclear arsenal. He makes speeches about the pig ape Jews, and how Israel will be destroyed. By him. And he says the Great Satan - that's us - will also be destroyed. Never did the Soviets approach such vitriol. The Soviets were sane - by which I mean rational as we understand it. Iran, now, listens to voices no one else can hear. Those voices say destroy the US and the Jews, and Iran wants to obey.
That's why Carter is the worst president in six generations - maybe ever. We needed a Jackson or a Lincoln or a Roosevelt - either - and instead we got a Buchanan. It's taken a generation to come to maturity, but the perspective of the ensuing years makes it clear. He was midwife to the monster that will destroy us, if we let it. The Peacock Throne is a nest for harpies - ravenous, man-eating and irrational. In a few months or a few years, their claws will be sharp enough. It may be, soon, that the Civil War is no longer the costliest of wars for America.
Thanks for that, Carter. And happy President's Day.
J
Sunday, February 19, 2006
White Sheep
Orwell wasn't writing about the West. Duh. It's about Totalitarianism, and it isn't a cautionary tale, but an allegory of the reality of his time. He had once, if memory serves, been in thrall to the Communist ethos - even if I'm wrong, he was a socialist. Perhaps that's what focused his ire - seeing his own dream turn nightmare. But he understood a great deal about corruption from the Left. A fair broker.
Strength is necessary. Laws operate through coercion. I don't need a law telling me not to rob banks. Some do. And it is only through the threat of violence - socially prescribed violence - that laws are enforced. Obey this law or we will hurt you. I never had to spank my son, but I would have. And it really would have hurt me more than him. But I would have. Society, government, is not a paternal entity - not as a conservative sees it. It is a compact, a mutual protection league, where we band together to ensure the general, the general welfare. And a big part of that is the fact that the collectively agreed-upon rules are not only obeyed, but that their breach is punished. Force. Coercion. Violence.
This is one of the reasons that corruption in offices of trust is so hated, in America. In Mexico, it is expected - la mordida. But here, well, we used to have the idea of being tarred and feathered, of being ridden out of town on a rail. It's not likely to come as a huge surprise to anyone who's read my postings here, but I'm all for bringing back the pillory, the stocks, and public flogging. Truly. Not televised. Caning is a perfect punishment: quick, harsh, expiating. You've been punished, now go and sin no more. But when those in power themselves need punishment, it's the courage of that quaint and dated concept, the little guy, that makes things right.
Alas, consider: Our mass morality is offended, so we ... riot? Burn embassies? Burn effigies? A quick survey of American history finds Puritanical repression and Leftist anarchy. I should say, isolated repression and anarchy. This, to head off any ill-conceived attempt to compare any characteristic of America with, oh, say, Islam.
Here's the point: we are a moderate and balanced people. Our founding documents are idealistic and practical, embodying hope and providing for reality. All men are created equal, but they are not equal. Because corruption is a birthright, we were given checks and balances, and separation of the branches of government, and decentralization. The strong protect the weak. How lovely and how fair, this land.
Reality is ugly though, and ideals are imperfectly realized. We are not children, to be discomfited by this. Instead, we resolve to be strong. If not in body, then in intellect. If not in intellect, then in character. If not in character ... well, that's the end of the matter. Which brings us back to journalism. Orwell, a journalist, said, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." He's not the last man to understand that fact, but those of his now-degenerate tribe retain not the meaning of his words.
Americans are not sheep, to need shepherds. There is to be no guiding human hand, casting sticks before us that we should take on this or that characteristic. Rather, we may take up a big stick and wield it in our own defense. It is by the strength of our own hands that we prosper or fail. I speak as an idealist, of course - and thus as a fool - but as an idealist who works toward achieving his end. To be a fool to such a purpose is a fine thing. The purpose? Well, who wouldn't agree: to be faithful to what we hold true, to be gentle in both weakness and power, and to be ferocious in the defense of what we love. Somehow this comes out as wisdom and moderation.
J
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Trivia
So Leno, and Letterman, and that vapid odious idiot Helmut Crisp, can tickle themselves with their glib tongues, but this is a serious thing. That the VP was involved - in fact the proximate cause - is just weird. I should say, merely weird. If this is news-worthy at all, and it barely is, it isn't because a holder of high office is involved, however. That, after all, is what we call "gossip" - oh, did you hear?! - isn't it divinely juicy!?! This is news because a man who mattered to the people who cared about him has been hurt.
Harry Whittington doesn't matter to me. I should never have heard of him. He has in no way affected my life, in the slightest, to any degree. There is no plausible circumstance that he could have any meaningful influence in the lives of even the smallest fraction of those of us now who have heard - or not- his name. He is not news. At all, or at best, hardly.
Which brings us to a major problem, or perhaps only issue. How much of what we hear via the media is actual news? What is news, anyway? I use the casual and idiosyncratic definition of information about an occurrence that can influence my actions or opinions. It is, as I say, a casual definition. But it bears within it the idea that I must somehow be changed, by its hearing. So car accidents, or chases - or diets, or even sports ... these are things that some people want to hear about, but they are not news. There is a gravity inherent in the idea of news, lacking in this fluff. Our time is wasted in hearing it. At best, such items are news only in the sense that obituaries are news - they announce a distant and inevitable occurrence. More likely, though, is that they are prurient and petty, and appeal to what is lowest in our characters. If it bleeds, it leads.
For shame.
So that we hear of poor Harry Whittington is not inappropriate. One or two sentences, explaining the circumstances, and updating his condition. But that the waters should be red with blood by the media sharks ... no, that's not it. That the water should splash from the bowl as the minnows and clownfish school their way after some tidbit, well, it's somehow diminishing. It's like watching fat women fight over frilly underwear in the bargain bin. It's like seeing something petty and shameful. It's like watching the liar squirm in his lies, when he knows you know he's lying. It's quite a feat, to make what is technically true sound like a lie, but the media manages the trick. What should we expect from a "profession" - the world's oldest? - that primarily entails cherry-picking "quotes" to invent the story they want told. Media: that occupation the primary qualification for which is the substitution of integrity with ambition. Me first! These plastic headdresses. A pox on them and their tribe.
I don't care about Mr. Whittington, except to empathize with his hardship, and commiserate with his family. And Dick Cheney gives the appearance of being a strong and hardy man, but it can be no easy thing, to bring harm to a friend. But what I really don't care about, are the flaccid girdle-wearers who make sincere-seeming faces through their makeup into the camera, waving their hands and flapping their lips in a pathetic bid to distract us from real news.
Shameful, and pathetic.
J
Monday, February 13, 2006
Look Out! He's Got a Gun!
All right-wingers are too stupid to know who Shakespeare was, who was gay by the way, so Cheney couldn't have been thinking of the line from Henry VI part 2: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!" Perhaps Cheney thought he was shooting a minority? The name wasn't Matthew Shepherd, was it? It must be just a reflex with them, like swallowing is with me. In any case, looks like it's open season on VPs, now! Mount up, boys!
What Your Humble Author would like to know is where was Dick Cheney when Kennedy was shot? I think we've stumbled onto something here. And isn't a columbine a sort of bird? And isn't it cosmic that Scooter Libby should work for Shooter Cheney? The hand of Gaia! It's all so clear, now.
Far be it from YHA to say that those of us on the Left could have been wrong about it, but perhaps a re-thinking of gun control is in order. Let's see - if we just leave all the guns in the hands of Republicans, maybe they'll finish each other off! But no, it's the Repugs who have all the guns already. Of course it goes without saying the worst offense was not instantly informing the press. Who do these ignorant hateful Texas redneck bucktooth Abners think they are? The gall!
And speaking of Dead-eye Dick, there appears to be a scurrilous "parody" of a G&S number creeping its way about the Web, like a fat venomous spider. Something about Osama B - a greatly misunderstood character, btw - working for the Democratic Party. YHA has not seen it, but some of his lovers seem to be under the impression that YHA is somehow involved. Rest assured, Dear Reader, such is not the case. Everything I write is tactful and intelligent and enlightened, and factually accurate, unlike those twisted scummy baby-killing conservatives who keep on spouting their lies that there was a so-called "Holocaust."
Alas, YHA is pressed for time - off to collect signatures outside a health food store to protect a woman's right to choose. One is never too important to help. Darlings, until next we meet, au revoir, mes enfants. I remain, intelligently,
Your Humble Author,
Helmut Crisp
PS - Checkers
Saturday, February 11, 2006
First World
Again, the European Union - currently comprised of twenty-five states - is larger and more populous, with a greater gross domestic product, than the
In contrast, the
What of it? Well, the
To whom, then, does the future belong?
The greatest natural resource is human ingenuity. Wealth is created, not found. Oil, or minerals, or land or any asset is of no worth until it is exploited. Its worth is invented by recognizing and using it. In game theory there’s the idea of a zero-sum game, where if somebody profits (wins), somebody else loses (um, loses) - for every plus, there is an equal minus. But if I extract ore from the desert, who loses? If miners and refiners, and transporters and manufacturers and merchants occupy themselves with profiting from the use of that ore, who loses? Well, I suppose lizards and kangaroo rats are disturbed - but a mine site is just another ecosystem, right? A sunken ship becomes a reef, and a world is born.
Property, despite what utter fools assert, is not theft. The misery caused by the company town or robber-baron capitalists is not a requirement of economics or of capitalism - it is the outworking of corrupt human nature. So, with a slight tweaking of emphasis, the memorable maxim from the movie “Wall Street” becomes not merely true, but right: “Greed is good.” No, greed isn’t good, but enlightened self-interest is good. A vice is just a corrupted virtue - love into lust, or charity into sloth. Play the game yourself.
What, then? A final factoid: the entire Arab world has a gross domestic product smaller than that of, say,
So there it is. It used to be that the “first world” was defined by democracy and industrialization, the “second world” by communist domination, and the “third world” by poverty. But things have changed. I would have it that the first world, as always, is that aligned with the USA - I think its clearest current descriptor would be the position on the so-called war on terror - specifically, having a positive roll in this, the Fourth World War. The “second world” is characterized by a socialistic, pacifistic, and to my way of thinking hypocritical and cowardly mindset. Most of
“Poverty” is not about lacking money. You can be poor or you can be broke - the difference being that broke is temporary. The key is attitude. We saved and rebuild
What of
The future could be almost anything. But it is not a zero-sum game. Just thought I'd point that out.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Insane!
X
Monday, January 30, 2006
Barking Moonbats
nster. If you Google “failure,” the White House bio of George Bush is the first entry. If you Google “freedom,” in
And who has the right to tell me what I can do? It’s a free country, and that means I can do anything I want. Oops, I mean it was a free country until that Bush stole the election. So if I want to abort fetuses, or have sex with them, nobody has the right to tell me I can’t. Only an idiot would think otherwise. I mean after all it’s my body isn’t it? Abortion is a choice and being gay is not. And what about slavery? Oh, the whales, the whales. Christians are bad. Hemp. Stonewall.
On the other hand, these irrational redneck racist bigot conservatives who are all so evil and stupid.
And so, Dear Reader, Your Humble Author trusts that the force of his logic has swept away the reactionary cobwebs that have obstructed the way to Progress and Intelligence.
Your Humble Author can be contacted at this address, and he is available for Happenings, Sabbats, and poetry events both extempore and programmed. For a small contribution of $20 Canadian, CDs of Your Humble Author’s award-winning poetry may be had – including Burn, Redneck, Burn, the classic Too Few on that Cross, and I’m So Much Smarter Than Y’all. Also, don’t forget the upcoming Sixth Annual Moloch Orgy and Fetus Barbeque (last year we actually had a manifestation!). Baby-sitting will be provided, and is mandatory.
Your Humble Author,
Helmut Crisp
PS –
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Happy Abortion Day!
re better off dead -- not that they ... it ... those its ... those things were ever alive to begin with.
The so-called Fourth of July may be so-called
Monday, January 9, 2006
Why All Republicans Are All Totally Evil
But worst, I think every liberal-minded person will agree, is his whole swaggering faux-macho braggadocio. I mean, far be it from me to disparage a boy’s butch façade – I played with that little roll … ahem, I mean role in my ’70s salad days. Didn’t we all, back when our waistline was a bigger number than our age. And sugar, let me tell you, a boy hasn’t lived until he’s felt some leathery chaps rubbing between his legs. But that Bush simply doesn’t seem to grasp the fact that masculine is just a pretend concept, like unicorn or marriage. And that’s why those of us on the Left hate that Bush so much.
So-called America – that geographical designation which was stolen from the indigenous people of color by the genocidal Columbus and all colorless people who are all evil – can only rejoin the civilized world by paying reparatons to all people of color everywhere regardless of any historical considerations, by impeaching the monster Bush and immediately withdrawing from all illegally occupied territories, which is all territories, and by handing over all governmental functions to the United Nations. All so-called Americans are evil, and their overlords the Repubicans are only capable of launching vicious ad hominem attacks against rationality, led by their Anti-Maitreya cult-leader, that Bush.
So, to recap, no blood for oil, give peace a chance, Halliburton, choice, Bush stole the election, Republican’s are racists, global warming, war is bad for flowers and other living things, right-wingers hate minorities and gays and women, soldiers are baby-killers, Christians are intolerant, no blood for oil, no blood for oil, and that Bush is a macho moron who looks like a chimp. Your humble author realizes that this is a rare departure from his habitual rigid objective neutrality, but integrity demands that the utter truth sometimes be spelled out, boldly. Your humble author trusts that the clarity and fair-mindedness of his views has removed all confusion that might have clouded the understanding of any reader.
Your Humble Author,
Helmut Crisp
PS – Bush lied.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
BLOOD FOR
won’t display the
orphans widows women children shattered
bones and severed limbs dripping oozing
gaping ghastly blackened wounds
blahblah blahblah
because
words are so so cheap so
colorfully evocative
just imagination cued by
words they’re only
symbols
and
when we move through
to that compassion
that’s not a mood
when we think
we know.
Tragedy is best observed by silence.
So I won’t be dramatic.
But as for propaganda
it’s always true
that somewhere, someone, some
many ones are suffering
it’s always true
and we pick and choose
whose suffering we care about.
So some say
“No Blood for Oil”
and some say
Yes.
Blood.
For Liberty.
Is that dramatic?
It’s just a choice, right?
J
Sunday, December 18, 2005
* I Sing of Thee
That's where the problem of "non-specifics" comes in. There is no "American culture" or "American religion." There is a Japanese culture and a Japanese religion -- a Norwegian culture and religion -- an Arab culture and religion. Ah! -- you see the connection? The definitive term here is not culture or religion, but Japanese, Norwegian or Arab. We're talking about race. And there is no American race.
To imagine that what we see on TV or in movies is "American" is to imagine that our planet is mostly water. No, its surface is mostly covered with water. An entirely different thing, than the "planet" "being" mostly water. I do not love the "culture" of America as Hollywood imagines it. But that's as much as to say I don't love something that's not real. Who loves what is not real? Who loves lies? Beyond the people we know and love, what else is there to love? Ideals. Principles. The "this is what I stand for" sort of thing.
So I do not need to defend against anyone's incorrect words about what they imagine. In logic, there's the idea of the "straw man" -- set up a false argument or position, then knock it down. One of the things I learned by teaching it to my son, was to never argue about opinions, and to never argue about facts. Why argue about opinions? -- blue is better than yellow! No, yellow is better. No, blue. No, yellow.... And on and on. Why argue about facts? A fact is something that can be demonstrated -- so rather than argue, demonstrate. Simple. And my son laughed, and summed it up: "In other words, never argue." Right. What a wonderful son.
America is beautiful, to me. It's not, to you? There's your opinion, and there's mine. I shall not argue. It really boils down to this: anyone who doesn't love their mother, is not admirable in this. Even if she had many faults. Even if she was a whore. You still should love her. Everyone's country has blotches on its record. But everyone should love their country, because it is the banding-together of the families who live there, and because it is the entity ordained to look after our general welfare. Of course there are criminal regimes, kleptocracies and totalitarians and the like, that simply exploit. But those are governments, not countries.
So when I hear certain people or parties in America revile her in their speech, I hear disloyalty and what is shameful. Even if your mother is a whore, you should honor her, and try to help her. For aliens to hate America is their right -- even though they're wrong. For enemies to say your mother is a whore is to be expected, whether she is one or not. America is no whore -- she is Liberty, and Justice. That's the ideal I was talking about. The reality is that the ideal is polluted with humans and their corrupt human nature. But there you have it -- even the healthiest of men breathe in viruses with every breath.
After we subtract the built-in guarantee of failure, because people are involved, the question everyone has to ask themselves is this: how noble, how upright, how honorable is the system we live in? I think the American Constitution is the most perfect human document ever composed, not because it wasn't flawed -- it took a Civil War to expunge the odious but necessary compromises on slavery -- but because it recognized so perfectly the corruption of human nature, and ensured against it with checks and balances, with separation of powers, with such superb decentralization and federalization.
Where else in the world has there ever been such wisdom? Japan? Norway? Any of the Arab nations? No race could have done such a thing. But America has its origins in something greater than race. And the thing that gave the Founding Fathers their wisdom, is their insight into human nature. They were, all of them, students of the Bible.
J
Friday, December 16, 2005
THIS WAR
Is it about Oil?
Is it about Weapons of Mass Destruction
or
Terrorism
or
is it about Our Western Imperialism?
Is it a Crusade,
a Civilizational Struggle?
Is it about Those Jews
or
the Arabs?
Is this war about some Thing
that I have added to this List?
I don’t think so.
But I don’t know.
I don’t know why the sun shines.
But I think
that
this war
is about
Their
Freedom.
[4/7/03]
_____