Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Crazy current events

It has been my policy for some time not to post about current events, for fear of attracting new readers or entertaining current readers. But today I'll make an exception, because something strange. Apparently, Kenneth Lay, disgraced and convicted former CEO of Enron, was killed today by a North Korean missile. I'm not sure of the details, though, because I heard the news via the radio of the car stopped next to me at Skinker and Lindell. I guess he had it tuned to NPR or something.

But it's kind of weird, isn't it? Bush is apparently taking a sort of soft line toward the incident. Despite the fact that a foreign country launched a direct missile attack against the mainland US, the fact that it killed only one person, and that person had fallen out of favor with voters, was enough to convince Bush that the correct approach was reiterating his support for multilateral talks.

You want to know what I think? I think this multilateral peace-nik bullshit has no place in the modern world. Need I remind you of September 14? Or was it the 12th? Anyway, you know what I mean. How many threats is this "peace-at-any-cost" president going to sweep under the rug while spouting his bleeding-heart liberal "let's talk it over" garbage????

Now I'm not saying we shed a tear for Lay, but some prime real estate in Aspen, Colorado was severely singed (I assume, like I said, I haven't really had time to get the details, though I'm sure by now they've been thoroughly white-washed by the liberal press). Aspen's not the greatest place in the world, but it's still American soil. And I know what you're going to say, and I agree. The residents of Aspen are some of the worst, snottiest, dipshittiest people on the planet. I say this from experience. I've met many Aspenites and every last one of them is a waste of a human being, an utter waste.

So I'm starting a grassroots campaign, "Nuke North (korea) Now!" Anyone who comments on this post, or has ever commented on any post on this blog, is hereby a member. Now get out there, footsoldiers, and change some hearts!

8 Comments:

Blogger Xeno said...

Was it a No-dong or type-o-dong missile? I'm bettin that Lay was a Tpye-o-dong type-o-guy.

5:15 PM  
Blogger Expatriate Owl said...

Actually, we don't really have to resort to deploying our nuclear weaponry.


Remember that North Korea is Red China's surrogate and, to some extent, its puppet. If the so-called "People's Republic of China" really, REALLY didn't want North Korea to test its missiles, then you can bet the mortgage money that North Korea would not be testing its missiles.


But, just as the American taxpayers are secretly pleased that Ken Lay has conveniently saved us the costs of his sentencing and incarceration by doing the honorable thing and dying, the PRC (to me, it will always be Red China) is convenienced and pleased that Pyongyang is doing its missile thing.


Remember also that since World War II, the American taxpayer has effectively been absorbing the costs of Japan's military defenses. We have stationed our troops there and have effectively prevented Japan from building their own military establishment to the extent it otherwise would (which has enabled their industrial and commercial sectors to run run circles around ours, while burdening our own American economy).


What we should do, then, is to announce that the gravy train has come to an end, and that the American taxpayers are sick and tired of subsidizing Japan's military, and that we intend to pull our troops out of Japan and let those damn Nips pay for their own army.


And the Red Chinese, and the Koreans, and the Filipinos, and the Burmese (it's still Burma as far as I am concerned), and all the other nations who remember the atrocities committed by the Japanese in the regions they occupied (even the local Nazi representative in Nanking was appalled by the conduct of the Japanese when they occupied the city) will poop in their pants, and will beg us to continue our comparatively benevolent management of Japan's military defenses.

And somehow, I suspect that Red China will find a way to rein in the folks in Pyongyang.

8:01 PM  
Blogger Arfanser said...

I have had issues with expatriate owl in the past. But this time I think he is right. Why are the american taxpayers footing the bill in Japan? In Africa? In Israel? In so many other countries? If we stop the gravy train I bet we would find it a lot easier to "negotiate" with the rest of the world.

As for Aspen, maybe now those without millions in the bank can get in on the skiing up there.

8:56 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:58 AM  
Blogger Xeno said...

We're floating the bill in Japan because we forced it on them in their surrender after WWII

6:53 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

Japan was like the Germany of the far east, being the rationale, I assume. Better to have fewer guns in a powder keg of a region. At least fewer guns in the hands of the people with imperial ambitions.

Incidentally, I have to call out expatriate owl's use of the word "nip" to refer to a Japanese person. This is a racial slur, a straight up racial slur. It is seriously uncool.

And the casual "I'm a conservative who doesn't go for all these fancy, new-fangled terms for things" attitude is smarmy and condescending. "Red Chinese" - give me a fucking break, asshat.

I wonder, are black people still "coloreds" as far as e.owl's concerned?

7:29 PM  
Blogger Expatriate Owl said...

In response to Matt's comments, I candidly and unapologetically admit that my comments were intentionally crafted so as to simulate a time warp of an era past. This was done in order to emphasize the point that the Chinese people, and certainly their political leadership, have not forgotten the effects of unchecked Japanese military power.


As Matt implicitly observes, terminologies and nomenclatures do change over time. Your attention is directed to the case of People v. Chu, 273 N.Y. 191, 194 - 195, 7 N.E.2d 96, 97 (1937) ("The Chinese Charitable and Benevolent Association of the City of New York was organized in 1890. The purposes for which it was formed, as stated in its certificate of incorporation, were 'to ameliorate the condition of the Chinese poor in and about the City of New York; to care for and help sick and destitute Chinamen in and about the City of New York; to give advice and pecuniary assistance as required to reputable and deserving Chinamen in and about the City of New York; and generally to aid and succor all worthy Chinese who may be found to be in need of assistance.'"


It seems, then, that while the term "Chinaman" is now considered a racial slur in 2006, it apparently was not in 1890 and in 1937, when even the Chinamen referred to the Chinamen as Chinamen.


And a number of years ago, I had a client who was a sculptor of international repute, who sought recompense from his insurer for the damage of one of his sculptures. One of the issues litigated was the meaning of the term "vandalism" as used in the insurance policy. Now howcum all of the do-gooder peace, love & brotherhood liberals are unoffended by the use of the term "vandalism" in light of the word's derivation from the Vandal tribe?


So yes, word meanings do evolve, and my posting was written in terminology from a bygone era, for the very purpose of reviving the sentiments of that era. I stand by my posting! And while Matt's discomfort does concern me, my concern would be even greater if my posting made Matt feel comfortable.

8:39 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

You wrote "Nip" because you wanted to emphasize Chinese fear of Japan's imperial ambitions?

No. First, would you drop the n-bomb as a literary conceit? Second, that term is indicative of American perceptions, not Chinese perceptions. It has nothing to do with Nanking and everything to do with Korematsu.

You say you write "for the very purpose of reviving the sentiments of that era." Which sentiments, exactly, do you expect to evoke by the use of American racial slurs?

As for the vandalism defense: Nobody's offended by "vandalism" because there are no more "Vandals." When somebody says "vandalism," they're not even thinking about Germans. The word has its own established meaning which has superceded its older nominative use.

Your "vandalism" argument would be relevant to the issue at hand if you had mentioned Cheese Nips or Nip/Tuck or used the offending word in a way other than as an explicit cultural identifier.

Coz that word, when used to indicate Japanese people, says, "I think very little of Japanese people." And no purported liberal hypocrisy changes that fact.

10:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home