"Portgate" - for crying out loud

So the United Arab Emirates, some dinky little Arab country, wants to run the terminals at six American ports. Hmm. Sounds like a bad idea, doesn’t it, what with all these Arab terrorists who hate America so much. What with all these hundreds and hundreds of gigantic cargo containers entering the country, and without even being inspected – just a look at the manifest, and who knows but that those "green coconuts" are not in reality filled with sarin gas or somesuch. And you’ve seen how harsh I am on Islam. And I’m all for "racial" profiling – by which is meant, of course, "cultural" profiling. Virtually all terrorist activity is carried out by Moslem males between 17 and 35 years of age. Please, sir, may we have a special line at the airport for them?

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

13 x 3: The Worst President

Carter was the worst president of the 20th Century. I said in "Why We Hate Clinton" that he was the Buchanan of the 1900s. Here's my reasoning. Buchanan was no doubt a nice guy, and an able bureaucrat. At some other time in history, he would have been perfectly adequate - say, in the 1880s. But he had the grave misfortune of being the perfectly wrong man for that specific time, immediately preceding the crisis of the Civil War. The writing was on the wall. The crisis was imminent. A generation earlier, Jackson faced a similar problem - he planned on meeting it with a massive army, and said he would hang the first rebel he met on the first tree he saw. And he meant it. And they knew it. And the problem went away.

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

White Sheep

George Orwell understood tyranny as deeply as did Churchill. How strange, for a journalist. But then Churchill was a journalist too. Hmm. Ah. There must be some evolutionary force at work, here, where the crude, rough few are being bred out of the gene pool. Some sort of striped-sheep deal going on, like with Jacob and Laban. Someone forgot to set out the branches, though. All we're breeding nowadays is albinos, who cower from the heat of day. So, somehow, all Orwell is remembered for is "Big Brother," which, weirdly, seems to signify the American system in the minds of the e-literati. That's what a university ejumikashun will do for you. Hopfuley .... youl'l: lern how too splell; and - punkshuate!

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

Trivia

Harry Whittington. That's the guy's name. Harry Whittington. Not just a lawyer. Not just a Republican donor. Not just a seventy-eight year old hunting partner. A man, hurt in a painful accident. A passionate advocate of prison reform. A crusader for the mentally handicapped. A husband and father and grandfather - a friend and neighbor - someone who is loved. Someone who matters. Is his condition stable? Good. But he had a heart attack - a pellet worked its way through his core and touched, actually touched, his heart.

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

Look Out! He's Got a Gun!

aving maniac. When Your Humble Author heard the news, he nearly spewed his latte! When the reports first came in, it sounded like the Bush-doppleganger Quayle had been shot - something about birds and shooting and vice presidents. No such luck. It was Burr ... I mean Cheney doing the shooting. Well, I should say that blasting your lawyer in the face is a vice. Hope they packed some Bactine. I understand he's going to keep shooting lawyers until the threat of impeachment becomes technically impossible. But I think skinning them is just going too far.

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

First World

China and India have surging economies - so much so that some see the future as theirs. They have a voracious and growing hunger for oil, and are unencumbered by environmental regulations. Their workers earn a small fraction of what Western workers make, which may be tough luck for the individual, but is phenomenal for their national trade balances.

Again, the European Union - currently comprised of twenty-five states - is larger and more populous, with a greater gross domestic product, than the USA. The diversity of its culture is far more varied - Finland and Portugal have far less in common than California and Maine. If diversity is an asset, then the EU has this advantage over the US as well. The bureaucracy is centralized, regulation is aggressive, and the ethos is socialistic. If these are advantages, then the EU is ahead of the US.

In contrast, the US has the least regulated economy in the West. It is not a centralized, but a federated system - increasingly less so, but still markedly. The ethos is still the most laissez faire in the West, still holding (to a diminishing but significant degree of course) to a sink-or-swim mindset. The US, then, is far more Bush than GoreKerry. And Europe must count as the ultimate Blue State.

What of it? Well, the US has the fastest growing economy in the West. After Finland. How odd. Our economy is growing at a faster sustained rate than during the post-war boom of the '40s into the '70s. This, even after the economic goring of 9/11. Likewise, the US dominates the intellectual world, whether the standard be number of patents granted, or peer-reviewed publications, or PhDs earned, or (ahem) Prizes awarded.

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, Portugal. Why is Mexico a third world country, and Canada a first world country? Is it genetic? Does it have to do with melanin content in skin? Is a country’s placement along the latitudes a determinant of position in the world economy? The answer, of course, is cultural. Mexico is poisonously corrupt. Bribery is ingrained, like the old PRI party - imagine an institutional ... revolutionary ... party. Hmm. Sounds a bit, um, contradictory, somehow. Talk about an oxymoron. So Mexico’s chief export is Mexicans. I don’t want to go on about this, except to point out that no one leaves their homeland except to find someplace better.

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 Europe, then. The third world must be characterized by corruption, oppression and failure.

“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 Europe. The money we poured into that continent wasn’t wasted, because the culture there was not one of poverty. Europe after Hitler was broke - a temporary state, fixed with the help of friends. But all the aid we’ve poured into the third world is money down the black hole of corruption. The old saw goes that if you distributed all the money in the world equally, after a short time there’d be rich and poor again. Jesus said it: the poor are always with us. The third world will always be with us, because corruption is universal.

What of China and India, then? China has always been a world of its own. India is a surprisingly close ally of the US. Europe may be noticing that its socialism is a sort of sterility, mirrored in the infertility of Europeans themselves. As for Islam, theocracies turn out to be the most corrupt of all forms of government. What need we fear? India and China? No - welcome to capitalism, friends. Europe? Ah, dear sister, find your virtue and come home. Islam? As we remain strong, we remain safe.

The future could be almost anything. But it is not a zero-sum game. Just thought I'd point that out.

J

Insane!

Well! I, for one, have never seen or heard of anything more offensive. “Fetus barbeque.” “Pre-pube studz.” God! What a vile, vile man. And I don’t believe for one second that there is any such person as “Helmut Crisp.” It’s an obviously made-up name. I’ve done a search for him, and found no results. Rest assured that these sick ravings are pouring from the diseased mind of this twisted coward, “Jack H”. I’m sure he imagines he’s ever so clever. But we can console ourselves that his insane rantings have brought him to the attention of the authorities, and he is no doubt being investigated at this very moment. I’m not a violent man, but I’d love to get a hold of this weird freak and ventilate that chamber of horrors he uses for a brain. Oh, the vermin that rock must be covering.


X

Barking Moonbats

nster. If you Google “failure,” the White House bio of George Bush is the first entry. If you Google “freedom,” in China, you get nothing. Then you get arrested. And rightly so, because China is the coming thing. Red China is the new black - and sugar, let me tell you, my jungle fever just got jaundice. But thank Gaia that Google is refusing to allow Uncle Satan to know what I’m searching for. I mean, even a moron should understand that all my searchings for “hot young boiz” and “pre-pube studz” are protected by the, um, First Amendment or something. Maybe it’s the Fourth. Anyway, one of the good ones.

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 – Iran Contra

Happy Abortion Day!

re better off dead -- not that they ... it ... those its ... those things were ever alive to begin with.

The idea that something floating upside down inside a woman – yuck! – for heavens sake, could be human? – it’s simply laughable. If a lifetime of enlightened hedonism has taught Your Humble Author anything, it’s that appearance is the most important thing there is. And these horrid little globs of mucus certainly do not look human. They look like they belong on the end of a fishing line -- and thanks to choice, they do end up on a hook. The idea that anything of human worth could exist before birth? The very thought is absurd. After all, what is a person? Even a real baby is barely a person – certainly this unborn thing could not be. It’s obvious. Every thinking person of thoughtful intelligence knows that humanity develops over time, and certainly cannot be said to start before the defining moment of life occurs: when skin is first touched by air.

Just as evolution is a proven fact beyond any possibility of debate and anyone who disagrees with that is a cretinous buffoon and a religious cult fanatical bigot who should be interred in a re-education camp and have their dozens of filthy children placed in orphanages and put on Ritalin, so it must be clear to all educated persons of wit and culture that humanity itself is not a birthright, but rather something that a non-Republican government agrees to bestow on an organism. Only a fascist would think otherwise.

The so-called Fourth of July may be so-called America's "birth" day, but January 22 is the day it became civilized, and birthday became nonbirthday – choiceday. To think that this so-called country should be the laughing stock of the civilized world – oh, USSR, how we all miss you – by denying a woman the right to choose! Oh, the shame, the shame of it. To think that the French are laughing at us! – oh, the humiliation! But on that glorious, that millennial day, that high water mark of so-called American so-called civilization, in 1972! The Supreme Court saved us from this infamy! That’s why the Supreme Court is supreme. Every branch of government controlled by those of us on the Left should be supreme. Anything, to save us from the right-wing totalitarians who question our patriotism and oppress minorites such as women and gays. Oh, those hateful red state rednecks who are all so disgusting and judgmental ... ha! judgmentally retarded! Those intollerant hypocrites. If only choice were retroactive, how pure the world would be. They're all so hateful and racist.

How could anyone deny a woman the right to choose? What an evil, evil country we lived in and still live in. Cuba is so much better! Or San Francisco. How Your Humble Author, like all enlightened fellanthropists, hates, hates this horrid so-called America, and if only he could get a passport believe you me he'd be in Costa Rica this very moment - oh, those beautiful brown youths! ... I mean, philanthropists ... and, um, beautiful brown, um, yams. If only there were a way to abort America ... no, I mean exercise choice on America I mean so-called America as we abort no choice all the useless, vile parasites that infest the innocent uteri of women. What did a woman ever do, to deserve this invasion? - like that Bush penetrated Iraq? I can think of nothing. Some ignorant straight macho hetman beer-drinking breeder macho ignorant baseball-watching unwaxed dewd invades the vaginal barrel of his victim – and what of her choice? There is only one choice. Choice.

And so, to all Your Humble Author’s faithful readers, a fond remembrance is bid. We leave you with this golden thought of the day: Choice a fetus for freedom.

Your Humble Author,

Helmut Crisp

PS -- Teapot Dome

Why All Republicans Are All Totally Evil

oron. That Bush – no! … wait … Shrubbery! Oh, that's fabulous! That Shrubbery isn’t just the worst President in the history of the world, he’s the worst person who ever lived. And he’s so inarticulate -- he’s Dan Quayle bad. And he wants to be dictator of the world, and he was behind 9/11 – check the internet – it’s all there! And he smirks! Yuck!

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.

BLOOD FOR

I won’t be dramatic
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

* I Sing of Thee

YT

What I've noticed is a tendency in people to generalize non-specifics. That's clear, isn't it. "Generalize non-specifics." Sounds almost like it means something. The specific non-specifics I'm referring to are culture and religion. "Your religion is bad, because your culture is bad." As if there need be a meaningful correlation. Let's take America, for example. What is American culture? Is it hard work, thrift and rugged individualism? Is it tolerance and foreign aid? Is it McDonald's, violent entertainments and ugly angry music? And what of religion? Is American religion truly Christian, or Protestant?

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

THIS WAR

Is it about Our Freedom?
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]
_____