More tasty exegesis of racism from Aaron Clarey!

Hey, everybody, crayons up now, it's contest time! And special thanks to "Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey for giving us some credibility here: now you readers know that when we say he posted such-and-such and such-and-such a time, we're good for it!

So: On May 16, 2006, Aaron Clarey posted the following lovely item on his website, which he has since tried to bury:

Blacks Commit Disproportionately More Crimes than Whites

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2179561,00.html Why is it so hard to say? Why can't we address this like adults to solve the problem and be forth right [sic] about it? Oh, I forgot, because it's the truth. And the truth hurts. Especially when it harms the socialist movement

OK, let's do some exegesis now! The link is to an article discussing that in some areas of London, a plurality of people arrested based on evidence from hidden cameras (every libertarian conservative's delight!) is black.

So, right out of the gate Aaron is establishing his racist bona fides. He's going to use the behavior of blacks in London to say something about blacks in our society, since apparently race is much more deterministic of, say, people's criminal behaviors than nationality, society, etc. That racist assumptiuon isn't uncharacteristic of Aaron: he did it, for example, when he tried to say that Latino-lookin' guys in Minneapolis should be thought of as misogynists based on badly interpreted stats from Mexico. But, geez, it makes you think back a little uncomfortably on, say, things he's had to say about Africans, doesn't it? Of course, in this case he's right: everybody who's been among African-Americans knows about their strikingly universal love of fine tea and cheese, their reverence for the Queen, their love of soccer (which they sneakily call by a different name, just like they sneakily misspell words like "flavor" and "color") and cricket, their colorful argot ("boot" for "trunk," "trainers" for "sneakers," and "bobby" for "5-0," for example) and their quaint ethnic cuisine ("colcannon," "pigs-in-blankets," "haggis," and the like). But that's besides the point.


But then Aaron goes on to talk about how somehow, we don't discuss that there's a real disproportionate crime problem among minorities here in America. Which is, well, puzzling, because I think it would be difficult to read a major American newspaper for a week without finding some discussion of it, and it's a major theme of American art as well. And even if you accept the occasional evidence that Aaron Clarey basically can't read at an adult level, well, the culture has been so rife with this idea that if anything the discussion has been on how there's far too much portrayal of minorities as criminals rather than as heroes on TV and in pop culture. Hell, the only really new idea in the dialogue in forever has come from conservatives like Ward Connerly arguing that if anything we focus too much on the racial statistics. Even Aaron Clarey is not ignorant enough to think that what he's saying here is not unrealistically stupid.

So why's he say it? Well, because there's a population, sad to say, of low-browed, knuckle-walking, sloping-forehead, thick-necked Americans that are real real sure that all those nasty black people are getting away with something, and that's why they personally are being shafted, and if only the wool weren't being pulled over everyone's eyes by the liberal media, they'd get it. And that's Aaron's core audience, and here he is, reaching out - so nakedly that even he has tried to hide it. He's quite happy to smear minorities to make the fan base happy, until somebody notices it.

And he tells you as much with his clincher. Aaron, why exactly would a more criminal picture of black Americans harm "the socialist movement"? What exactly are you implying there? Care to elaborate, PILM?

I'm thinking, not.

Running teasers!

Hey, everyone, just wanted to remind you that in the next couple of days we'll be discussing Aaron Clarey's 5/16/06 post on the criminal tendencies of blacks, another fine blog post which he's been hiding away, no doubt out of modesty regarding his ... brilliance.

We're proud to bring you this fine feature because here at the Clareywatch we occasionally get comments to the effect of, "c'mon, Aaron Clarey is a fool, but no racist!" and then people read that great post on Latinos in the Minneapolis social scene and rethink. And then read s'more context, and rethink more. And then read his views on women, on Katrine victims, on ... well, let's just say there's so much depth to the guy that our readers can appreciate.

But we know that the monkey house feels differently, and we've invited them to explain why that post on Latinos isn't racist. So, here's your chance, guys! If you can write a really good explanation of why that post, and the "blacks and crime" post, aren't racist, then go for it! I'd be happy to change my mind in the face of a good, convincing explanation. Of course, I don't think you can pull that off, but frankly I think you need the practice. Remember, spelling counts! Sharpen up your crayons now!

Against the Day!

Now, it is definitely a celebration occasion here at the Clareywatch, since Thomas Pynchon has released a new novel, and that makes us deliriously happy. So, we're going to do a couple of things for you here.

First, in the next week, we'll give you, right on the blog (not as a PDF!) the text of Aaron's May 16, 2006 post on the criminal tendencies of blacks! That's right, right here for your edification! (To be honest it's not that we're so great, it's that it's real short so we can suck up typing it in.) The exegesis of that great piece of "Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey's writing on Latinos was so much fun, after all, so, let's do more!

Second - the monkey house is back open! Expect the lovable, stupid inmates to come throw feces for your entertainment soonest!

Aaron Clarey, Man of Steel!

So, here at the 'Watch we've been meaning to post something on, just what the hell is "Captain Capitalism Aaron Clarey's political philosophy? We've thought of it as a kind of Stalinism, exemplified by his praise of the horse sense of the common, blue-collar man coupled with a sort of contempt for him and a certainty that he shouldn't be running things, a certain, um, tendency to try to bury his past statements, a certain Belinskyesque view of how art and culture serve the state - all that. And we wanted to comment on his "libertarians for national ID cards!" writing here, where he says with regards to Mexican immigration,

Oh no, I'm completely for the free movement of labor and capital.

My issue is the issue of illegality COMBINED WITH a big movement on the left to get illegal aliens to vote.

If we had a national ID card, then I would be against the wall. But right now the sovereignty and integrity of the nation trumps any economic gains (great as they may be) of the free flow of labor. ie-capital can't vote, illegal aliens can.

I mean, that's so small-government libertarian, isn't it? My issue is, the government says it's wrong. We need a national ID card. The government needs to look out for the "integrity of the nation." Like, pure distilled Hayek, right? And we're trying to figger out how to praise this wisdom, when suddenly Aaron comes along today and gives us a great big paean to Stalinism (PDF)!

I mean, hey, yeah, who can not praise the Chinese government's great ability to do the right thing for their country by force! Like, when they take organs from all those prisoners who gave them up out of remorse for having committed the crimes the government falsely accused them of, and sell them to foreigners, that's certainly making "the right decisions," no wonder Aaron Clarey is "envious"! And he's certainly right to praise their decision to build a huge dam that may be an economic and environmental nightmare - no way to know, since of course they won't show you data. After all, what could be nearer and dearer to a conservative or a libertarian heart than the government taking away a lot of people's property to give to a state-controlled venture? What conservative couldn't praise a communist government for building walls to help keep people from fleeing starvation in totalitarian lands! Man, it's like Aaron Clarey is channeling Reagan! He's so smart! You go, China! Mr. Hu, build up that wall! And frankly North Korea is much more helpful than Mexico, no? They know how to deal with people trying to violate Chinese soveriegnty! I bet once there's a wall they'd be happy to help by patrolling their side with dogs, and guns, and maybe some kind of special secret police!

And of course, Clarey points out that it's all because they don't have to deal with a Sierra Club or ACLU. Of course, our government doesn't have to deal with those guys either, it's just that they have ways of getting their message out, whereas in China the government muzzles free speech - and here at the Clareywatch, we know how Aaron hates free speech.

Nothing to criticize there, comrades! Our only little nitpicky complaint is that once again, Aaron Clarey seems to be showing that first-grade reading comprehension with

Meanwhile it took Bush, what, 6 years to get us to AGREE to build the fence?

Uh, Bush didn't want the fence ... stupid. Bush is the guy who, as governor of Texas, stood up to Pete Wilson's maneuvers to deny services to illegal immigrants, and protected those services. Bush wants a guest worker program, and they crammed the fence down his throat.

Not all stingy bastards - just one!

So, in this post, "Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey points out that people are unfair to criticize the American government's monetary donations in the wake of the Christmas 2004 tsunami, since Americans donate so much money abroad. And it's a good point. The charitable response of the American people makes one proud. The principal of this blog, for example, tossed cash worth about 1% of his pre-tax income into a collection site at a place of worship, to help the victims, and many other people did more. Of course I realize that that claim is conveniently non-provable (and non-deductible), but nobody's really going to question it; it's in character, and besides, we all know people who did more or less the same, because the scale of the catastrophe was so horrifying.

And that's really a testament to the Pathetic Ignorant Little Man, isn't it? Because, given the comments he's made about foreign aid, about the world's poor, about America's poor - hell, about all but the richest 40% of Americans - it simply defies belief that Aaron Clarey put so much as a quarter in a tin can for the tsunami's victims. Hell, Clarey is so repulsive that he almost brags that he doesn't give to charity; press him on it, and I'm sure he'll feed you some crap about how he's contributing to GDP and that's really what helps those people.

And that's quite an achievement, isn't it? I mean, how many people do you know, who are so subhuman, that you would be skeptical if they told you, "I ponied up $20 for the Indian Ocean tsunami victims."? And yet at the same time, the guy bitches and moans about how wrong it is to call us stingy because people - other people - are so generous to those in need? Bravissimo, Aaron! You're one unique dude.

Simply amazing

So, we've often noted how "Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey, having gotten busted here for that racist post on Latino Americans, keeps changing the name: he clearly wants to hide it, presumably since it contains no real content but a racial slur, but also wants to keep it up there, presumably since it contains no real content but a racial slur: he knows who his audience is and wants to please 'em, but doesn't want decent normal Americans to know what he thinks. OK; this has been a real exercise in learning that Clarey is a worse human being than even we thought he was. (Fun project on the burner: a slide show of all the versions of that post). And he's done similar things with other posts, like the one trashing all but the richest 40% of Americans.

But, can you believe it, he's doing the same thing with the post trashing Katrina victims, too! The original is here, but he's rewritten it here (or the PDF is here).

And, man, it totally fools everybody!

Build a memorial to the unknown taxpayer!

By the way, we've been meaning to call attention to this item here.

Pardon for quoting the blogger, who writes

...[Clarey] took a call from a guy who is a Vietnam Era veteran. After asking Clarey his age and marital status (31, unmarried), this guy suggested that Clarey trot down to the local recruiter and sign up so he could take his energy and do just what he was suggesting.

Well, Clarey sorta danced around the suggestion, saying that he paid plenty of taxes and that was pretty much equivalent to serving in the military. Besides, he added, he had been to the recruiter, but balked when told he'd be best suited to be a logistics officer.

A couple of other callers phoned in and didn't seem all to happy with Aaron's reasoning about his taxes being a sufficient contribution for someone seemingly so fired up about fighting hard and strong. Clarey seemed a little less spirited after all those calls.

That got me thinking. What does it cost to send a soldier to fight in Iraq? I did a little Googling, and found this story. It seems that the cost of sending a soldier to Iraq for a year has gone up a lot, now reaching approximately $400,000. That's a lot of money. I wonder if a 2-hour-a-week talk show host and part-time ballroom dance instructor makes enough money to pay that much in federal income tax. Somehow, I doubt it.

Now, I certainly don't believe that a person has to join the military to be a patriot, although I'll call any man or woman who serves a patriot. I do believe, however, that a man who trumpets his determination that we fight and fight hard on the radio, while spending the rest of his time teaching folks how to Salsa, should not be claiming that his taxes are equal in any way to the service of the brave young men and women who risk their lives in our military.

The first caller I mentioned said, "It seems like you're one of those 'Let's you and him fight' kind of guys," to Clarey. I think Aaron needs to dust of his old economics texts and figure out how his federal tax dollars are equivalent to service in the military. I think his math's a little shaky on this one.

Ya gotta wonder, did the little fellow actually compare paying his taxes to serving the country in uniform? And, what, is he above being a logistics guy or something? 'Cuz we've got first-hand info here that if you want to just be a grunt and go remove IEDs, they'll let you do that (and even pay you a hefty bonus at the moment). So as always I find myself wondering, what kind of man awards himself a title, and what contempt does that show for the men and women who earn it?