"First it killed the Chippewa// And now it's killing me."

Some might be surprised to hear Ojibwe described as a "dead language." Well, it will be, dammit, once the white guys stop bending over. So look out all you evil Indians!

When asses read charts

Man, somebody has never heard of payroll taxes. It takes a classy, smart dude to never have gotten a paycheck!

It's so cool how nutcases can keep awarding each other military titles nowadays. Especially nutcases who are too good to serve!

It takes the brilliant insight of an Aaron Clarey to tell all the Christians out there how to practice, while not doing it himself -- wow! A theological wizard too!

So What?

Since "Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey seems determined to diss a lot of good hardworking musicians, and show his pretensions to culture, let's pipe up here.

Now, your humble blogger isn't really in much of a position to be a jazz critic, as about ten minutes at his house listening to him maim "All The Things you Are" on a clarinet or tenor or trumpet or piano or guitar or banjo or oud or any of the other things we have lying around will convince you. But I've been lucky enough to be backstage or in interview rooms with Nicholas
Payton, Elvin Jones, Kenny Burrell (even introducing him to my parents), Olu Dara, Mike Stern (my fiancee and I spent a memorable afternoon taking a tired-but-upbeat Stern to San Mateo, then -- not my idea -- a McDonald's), Mike Brecker, Stanley Clarke -- you get the picture. So I know somethin'. Unlike some.

And I honestly believe that if it weren't for a certain nostalgia thing, 1995-2005 would be regarded as jazz's finest decade, past even the classic 60's Blue Note years. You still had titans on the scene -- Wayne Shorter, McCoy Tyner, Sonny Rollins, Herbie Hancock, the Joneses, etc. And "mid-period" guys who'd done a lot to expand the compositional and arranging possibilities of jazz -- Metheny, Dave Holland, Carla Bley, Chick Corea, Arthur Blythe, Julius Hemphill, etc. Some long absent masters returned -- Andrew Hill, Charles Lloyd, Pat Martino. And you had a blend of older musicians who sat perfectly balanced between long-standing tradition and the new -- Dave Douglas, Tom Harrell, John Abercrombie, Joe Lovano -- while other guys genuinely expanded the range of jazz in ways you'd never have predicted -- Bill Frisell, Dave Douglas, Bela Fleck, Chris Speed. Add to that a group of phenomenally, frighteningly talented twenty- and thirtysomethings --maybe more than in any previous generation -- who had finally shaken the 1980's navel-gazing: Matthew Shipp, Brad Mehldau (!), Brian Blade (!!), Ben Monder, Bill Stewart(!), Bela Fleck, Chris Speed, Chris Potter, Mark Turner, Jason Moran -- the list goes on and on and on. The globalization of the music -- particularly to middle Eastern forms -- was completed too.

Now, I would think nobody on the planet has more authority to talk about what Armstrong or Ellington might've found musically satisfying, than Roy Haynes. And Haynes doesn't seem to have a problem working with rappers or hip-hop guys. Nor does Shorter -- probably our best composer since Strayhorn (and honestly: these morons are holding up Strayhorn's musical generation as moral paragons?) Hancock is arguably the new music's godfather. So I don't know a lot about hip-hop -- but I'm not stupid enough to argue against those guys. And you can either listen to them, or some snot-nosed ass who can't so much as play a scale on a harmonica, and is now trying to do for culture what he does for politics and economics. Take your pick. Guys like Clarey are why the music stultified through the 1980's and early 90's as a generation of players all tried to out-imitate Freddie Hubbard -- why wouldn't I just go buy the original? -- although at least sometimes their arguments found their way into the mouths of intelligent (if grossly mistaken) folk like Stanley Crouch or his pet trumpeter.

But if you're new to this stuff -- please don't just ignore these greats like they don't exist: that's a slur on hardworking people keeping the stuff alive. Ellington, Armstrong -- they're great, sure, but if you're starting out in this, there's a lot of blisteringly excellent young cats you can go see live now -- so start with their stuff and ignore fools like Clarey. You'll find there's two kinds of jazz fans: guys who listen hard, and passionately love the music, and know it -- and brainless poseurs who like the "cachet" of stuff which has some cultural stamp of approval, desperately fear and trash the new lest they reveal stupidity when they opine, and would rather be at home with Aerosmith or something at least loud, truth be told. Clarey uses jazz lyrics like "Mahan" uses common Latinisms in an attempt to fool you into thinking he's a classicist -- let him BS you, and you lose a lot of great art.

(Don't get me wrong - one can accuse a lot of modern lyricists of coarseness and vulgarity beyond what's common: but the same accusation was made of the classical jazz lyricists. And the culture may in fact be going to hell - but for evidence of that, look instead to grown men who go around spending real time playing video games (although that does give us the unintentionally hilarious rating "M for Mature.") Or worse yet, adults reading Harry Potter books in public - hey, buddy, what's next on your list, Goodnight Moon?)

Don't fight the five-year plan!

"Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey lets his full fury loose on a stupid activist today, and really fleshes out her motives. Check it out (PDF)!

It seems that the Belgian state, in the superior economic wisdom only a government can have, has determined that a port must be sited at a specific place. But it seems some evil, heartless woman, "who never starved or missed a meal, who is suffering from some kind of mid-life crisis and looks back at her life and says, 'what have I accomplished?'" doesn't like them building a port right next to her property, lowering its value to her and others. No, this spoiled brat seems to think the wise, all-knowing state's economic plans should take a back-seat to her so-called property rights! Outrageous! Astounding! Next she'll be bitching and moaning because somebody wants to make part of her land a protected wetland or something!

Fortunately, Clarey points out that if the state "knows what its [sic] doing" economically, it'll ship people who even complain right off to a gulag. After all, real capitalism is when the state buys ownership of companies. I guess it's a sort of "capitalism of the heart"!

Thank goodness for clever midwestern journalists or I wouldn't realize how libertarian all this is!

Your health this week

It takes a brilliant, scientifically literate guy like Aaron Clarey to discover that Western liberalism causes AIDS (PDF). Who knew?

Whine and cheese conservatism

So, you read this long extended whine from the Pathetic Ignorant Little Man, and you start to think, man, there's some admirable chutzpah in going to an interview even after they've pretty much told you, by refusing to pay your fare, that they don't want you to interview (although granted Clarey seems typically clueless that that's what was going on). But then it all gets ruined by the sour grape-ism. In particular, what kind of fool lies at an interview, gets caught lying, and then brags about it? I mean, what idiot, after reading this self-pitying screed, would ever hire this guy to do anything? But then, ah, yes, Aaron Clarey is the kind of daring, convention-defying soul who spouts crud along the lines of,

I lied at an interview and got caught, and then they didn't hire me: therefore the system is stupid and stacked in favor of Ivy Leaguers.

or

I spout every kind of misogynistic crap, and women still don't appreciate me, which just goes to show that all the misogynistic crap is true.

or even

I defecated out a lot of racist hate speech publicly, and somebody went and pointed it out. Clearly Somebody done me wrong.

Yes, folks, whine whine whine, that's the ticket to glory. Never forget that Clarey's problems are always somebody else's fault, and damn it, he'll hire people to harass you into the ground to prove it if he has to.

Contagion?

So here's a Deep Question: AM radio bigots -- are they maybe some kind of spreading plague? Like bird flu or something?

I find myself mulling over this little passage from Eugene Robinson:

Nor is there much exculpatory power in Imus's defense of himself, which can be paraphrased as "I'm not a racist, I just keep saying racist things." What characteristics, do you suppose, could possibly identify a person who was indeed a racist? You think maybe that saying racist things might be a fairly reliable clue?

Funny; I've heard something like that somewhere very recently....

I think it's called a "bigoticon"

Ah, more pure, unadulterated bigotry (PDF). Nice to know by screening comments the Pathetic Ignorant Little Man maintains the highminded tone of the blog! And so nice to see what submissions he posts!

But I have a particular fondeness for the "I'm winking at you while I'm saying this" "emoticon" he uses on that last comment there to let us know what he thinks. There should be a special term for that!

Science is bunk, too!

Remember, now, true believers: you've gotta keep sucking up stuff like this, or you won't get more of this....

But ya gotta love the honesty. I mean, Clarey would have to consider himself a "scum bucket parasite" for having received a taxpayer subsidized higher education. But he's an honest guy so he always makes sure to show you, he doesn't really have what you'd consider an "education."

And still more Euripedes...

Now, over here at the Clareywatch we know nothin' about "Dave Thompson" other than that he lets "Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey sit in for him a lot, and is much admired by same, from which we feel it's safe to conclude, Thompson is a ridiculous, boneheaded troglodyte.

A-and.....yep. Guess you can tell a lot about guys from their associates after all.

A useful litmus test

Need to know if you're a pathetic, repulsive, subhuman cretin? Easy as pie!

Does this woman move you to compassion, or contempt?

Guess which side the Klever Klarey Krew comes down on!

For chemists only...

We're engaged in energetic internal debate as to which of these people is the second stupidest. I'm betting, no-ozone-hole guy. But from a strictly technical standpoint, the guy with "IR causes electronic excitation of carbonyl pi bond which is easily coupled into kinetic energy modes" is pretty off-the-charts, so I admit it's close.

Why do I believe in human-activity-caused global warming?
One third because of the freakishly smart people who are trying to convince me of it. Two-thirds because of the utter cretins arguing against.

Ask Karnak the Magnificent

Pathetic Insignificant Little Man Aaron Clarey has been awing himself with his ability to predict the actions of Hugo Chavez. Well, that's nothing, I tell you, nothing. 'Cause here at the ClareyWatch we made this statement about just how repulsive Clarey's views on, well, trying to be a decent human being are. And months later, he comes up with this and this. That first one's almost verbatim!

We'll be spending the rest of the afternoon moving pencils with our minds, thank you very much. There is no spoon, there is no spoon, there is no spoon...

Like Shaq, except short, talentless, and stupid!

In honor of Chinese New Year it's probably time to point readers to this little piece of brilliance (PDF). NBA stardom, look out for Aaron Clarey!

For some, a lack of education is their El Guapo.

Our apologies to those in the fanbase who are wondering, why no posts? There just hasn't been that much to work with. There's a kind of "sweet spot" to making fun of Aaron: when he gets too stupid, there's not really anything there. I mean, look at something like this: he doesn't understand just how ideologically broad the pressure on Bush is, nor that among the White House's not-necessarily bad arguments against acting is the need to maintain intelligence cooperation from a fundamentalist Islamic government with ties to terrorism (and he even throws in something to boot to show he doesn't get Iraq either). I just can't make fun of that: it exceeds even the level of stupid I expect.

But that makes me kind of rapturous. I mean, too much is said about how the Internet gives average schmoes access to great information: you can read about international affairs from the very well traveled, get war commentary from people with a lot of respect for the military, learn history and economics and science from respected, published masters in those fields, and so on. Look, all that's garbage, man. What's amazing about the internet is you can do exactly the opposite of all that stuff - in Clarey's case, all at one site: the rise of the idiocracy, brought to you in one-stop shoppng! Amazing! Look at it this way: sure, when a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters for a thousand years produce a copy of For Whom the Bell Tolls, that's impressive. But if you really want to impress me, start with stupid monkeys.

Consider all the bloviation lately over there on global warming. Now, there's a very small minority of people who know a lot about this stuff that don't believe in it, and of those there's even a couple without conflicts of interest. But the idea some moron using data
generated and interpreted by those very people, and saying, they just don't get the big picture -- now, that's laughably wonderful. And the proliferation of these little video gaming weenies talking about how the same people argued exactly the reverse in the late '70's -- hey, man, I was around in the late '70's. I remember those stories. And it wasn't nearly the same level of worry: and anyone who doubts it, can easily confirm it by scanning the scientific literature. There's just not a huge record of peer-reviewed 1970's studies concluding "global cooling" compared to what you're getting now. These are people who are utterly ignorant about how any kind of study is done, and yet claim to understand economics and history -- fields where the data are even noisier and the experiments less clear. And they're throwing up their hands and saying, oh, yeah, this system is so complex you can't pretend to understand it at all? Excellent! These are "capitalists" with a fundamental lack of faith in the very flexibility and innovation which makes capitalism desirable, who seem to think the whole system will collapse if it has to accommodate physical reality. Wow! These are the monkeys to impress with.

Anyway: sorry for the absence of stuff. Maybe we'll try a clever idea out in the next couple weeks.

UPDATE: We hesitate to put this up here because it's smart, but somebody sends us to this gloriously awake understanding of climate change and the stupid part of the right, written by the smart part of the right.

Free Aaron Clarey, you crooked evil Venezuelan mastermind!

So, there's a lot of hyperventilation on "Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey's website about Hugo Chavez. And that's sort of understandable because it's the strangest thing that the tinpot leader of a poor country should have become such a player internationally, a kind of proxy for America-bashing fools. I mean, the guy should be sort of a nonentity, and (at least until his legislature gave him new powers a couple weeks back) he's not even so much a dictator as a crude government bully and is hardly among the planet's worst such - so something is way screwed up that anyone pays so much attention to the guy.

But I don't get the repeated assertions that somehow Chavez is the darling of the American left. You can't find any love for Chavez in mainstream left-wing papers like the New Republic or the American Prospect. Even the Nation doesn't have much good to say about Chavez. Mainstream left-wing sources don't much like the guy and even the most repulsive of far left writers like those at Daily Kos seem to've gotten the whole thing about right, for a long time. Then again, liberal sources don't seem to care much about Chavez: it's the right-wingers who write so much about him.

Which suddenly makes sense, right? I mean, Latin America is now full of countries which have decided that the bits of financial aid Chavez doles out are worth more than any support from America (the sole exception, for obvious reasons, being Colombia). Even the President of Chile is willing to support Chavez' anti-US bid for a Security Council seat - and that's bad. And it's a gift, not from the left, but the right, which basically doesn't seem to have a Latin America policy. Which, in fact, got excited and sat on its hands during a coup d'etat, which really brought Chavez to prominence (this seems to be the only time I can find a lot of left-wing support for Chavez: when writers bashed the administration for failing to condemn the coup. Problem for the Clarey Crew is, the right came around to agreeing with them.) Because frankly, no amount of oil money should be enough to convince anybody in Latin America that the US isn't interested enough in the place, to be worth courting.

So suddenly I get this brilliant idea: maybe he's nationalized the right wing turkeys somehow? I mean, he gets all his press from the Aaron Clareys of the world. And they're the ones who seem to've decided that they just don't give a rip about the American sphere of influence in South America. So maybe he's made them all property of the Venezuelan government somehow? One moronic comment from Pat Robertson, means another round of international junkets for Hugo.

Well, we won't stand for that, Hugo! Free Aaron Clarey! Let our people go! We're wise to your little game.

[Not that there aren't topics about which those silly leftists and turncoat rightists go on and on about that Aaron never seems to consider interesting: like say prisoner abuse....]

No Reservation Required!

Hey, some good fellow went and followed the link below to read that racist post from Aaron Clarey on Indians. And I guess he then asked,

How do you know it was Native Americans that stole your car???!!!!Pretty presumptuous on your part!

to which the Pathetic Ignorant Little Man answered, gracefully,

Uh, because the cops recovered it on an Indian reservation.

No, i just surmised it must be a group of Indian kids because that's the mood I was in.

Any other stupid questions?

And, hey, that does clear it up! Because there's no chance that, say, some white kids that stole a car and are wondering where to go with it, might not want to go where they've heard they can buy smokes and sixes for cheap, and where there aren't so many cops on the ground. No, it's much more likely that whoever stole the PILM's car drove straight home with it, that being of course the whole point of a joyride, and having the additional benefit of letting people know who stole the car, which can help if they're particularly thick radio-host-types.

So rest assured, it's NOT some odious little man making a characteristically racist assumption and then broadcasting it as true from his soapbox.

The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven

So, quite often someone from the Great Out There will email us more instances of public racism from "Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey. Usually, we ignore them, because the Clareywatch is not a customer-service oriented outfit. Then all of a sudden when we check one out, we find a little gem like this little racist item (PDF) from the Clareyster. Let's look at it.

He's unloading scorn on an outfit he's heard about on the radio called MUD, which stands for Metro Urban Indian Direction, an "initiative to help educators reach out to Indian kids." So as always it's like there's a wall of stupid between Clarey and information, since we're told that the organization, MUID, is actually the Metropolitan Urban Indian Directors, an umbrella organization for Indian organizations in the area which does a number of things including advocate for afterschool and educational programs and safe neighborhoods. He makes fun of the fact that he can't learn anything about them on the Internet - presumably because he's looking for information on whatever made it through the wall of stupid, not what actually exists - and I guess that "libertarian light" insists that every NGO, even little ones which basically just coordinate separate entities, employ its own web guru.

And he ends with these pearls of wisdom:

they're referenced as some kind of initiative to help educators reach out to Indian kids.

Maybe they could reach out to the scum bag Indian kids that stole my car and punch them for me.

Oh, I'm sorry, white males aren't supposed to display anger. We're just supposed to bend over.

So take note of the wisdom of Aaron Clarey, all you darkies! Keep all yours in line, 'cuz there ain't no reason we should be doing shit for any of you! No, we should instead by hunting down your kids for joyriding, which white kids don't. And beware the wrath of the white males, man. They are the sleeping dragon, the dark horse, the X factor.

Y'know, truthfully, we can't figure out why Clarey gets so hostile when people point out that he's a racist. I mean, you'd think he takes some kind of pride in it. He writes like he learned everything he knows from some kind of Archie Bunker correspondence course, with the exams proctored by Timothy McVeigh.

A bit of J school

Hey, it turns out that, life being unfair and all, we got an additional fifteen minutes! Fact is, because of the holidays and stuff, we just found out about it here. But we have a lot of little quibbles with the story presented.

Perhaps most striking was the assertion that "Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey "shines a libertarian light on politics." Now, funny thing, but libertarians don't actually advocate national ID cards, or celebrate when an authoritarian government seizes private property for big public works projects, or bitch and moan when women and families make their own economic decisions, or advocate increased government control over the borders or scrutiny of firms' hiring practices or... Heck, for that matter they probably don't launch big lawsuits against free speech, no? Especially not when they don't even allege a penny of monetary damage in the complaint, which you'd'a thunk the reporter had read, no? Surely that's not "libertarian."

Well, look, that's actually sort of irresponsible of the writer. If Aaron Clarey is a libertarian, I'm a giant panda.

Now, you might try "conservative." Except, well, conservatives don't talk smut about women and children and the elderly or make fun of the religious or suggest minimum wage COLAs or attack Larry Summers' suggestion that affirmative action to recruit women into technical fields might be fruitless (admittedly, Aaron seems confused about what he's commenting on there), or celebrate when dictatorships build obstacles to keep people from fleeing torture under Communist regimes, or...

And neither label really conveys Aaron's bizarre need to keep up - but to hide! - speech which is nothing but a long racist attack on Latinos, or which harasses Americans who've lost their homes and families in a natural catastrophe, or tells us that gays are unmanly, or the bizarre insistence that the Nazis under Hitler were left-wingers, or...

Mr. Reporter, "libertarian" is dishonest. I think the words you're looking for are bigoted, offensive, jingoist ass.

Hope that's helpful!

UPDATE: But ya gotta love the "Perils of Pauline" sound of "this guy's not getting away with it." It makes one feel so...nefarious!

'Cause Uncle Joe, tells me so!

"Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey offers the following useful advice to up-and coming Iagoes economists:

When the elected legislature spends money on public works, in particular on public transportation, after hearing out specialists and public debate, you should look closely at the publicly available details of the finances, because rest assured the project is wasteful and stupid.

But when a totalitarian, unelected government spends money and commandeers private property for a public works project, in particular public transportation, without showing anyone anything and releasing what are generally understood to be doctored figures about the project's success, it's the right decision, and it's brilliant.

Incidentally, here at the Clareywatch, where we can't spray a seltzer bottle down the hall without soaking a bunch of atmospheric scientists Busby-Berkeley-style, we've been having a lot of fun with the latest batch of Clarey attempts to sound like a scientist - even appealing to "John Stossel" (no doubt quite the geophysicist) to refute the overwhelming consensus of the people who generate the data Clarey posts and to call, say, The Economist "idiots." Now we've talked on this before, and are getting requests to do so again, but, look - go talk to someone credible. Anyone looking to a guy who can't even read the graphs in his own purported area of expertise, to explain this stuff, is stewing in his/her own drool. Sorry, fanbase.

Aaah, Casual Wednesdays!

Usually, a man needs to look sharp: professional, alert, ready for anything the leftists might throw at him. "I don't worry 'cuz my wallet's flat," y'know? And I respect that and honor it.


But sometimes you find yourself softening up a little, and if you don't watch it, you find yourself endorsing longtime Democratic proposals. And that can prevent you from doing the things that need to be done, like, keeping an eye out for those "scum bag parasite" sneaky "poor" people buying filet mignon with food stamps, or helping people stupid enough to pay income tax on $10K. And that's why I like to kick back once in a while, relax, let myself hang out, y'know? Let's hear it for "Casual Wednesdays."

History is Bunk!

Once again, you can be educated by this post, in which Aaron Clarey, explaining why "real dictators are ALWAYS on the left," gives the amazing, previously undiscovered fact that

Hitler was a socialist. That's why they called it the National SOCIALIST Party.

I mean, who knew? Other amazing facts you can glean from the Clarey Method:

• The People's Republic of China is a Republic run by the People.
  
• Franco, Pinochet, Tsar Nicholas - all leftists!
  
• East Germany was the democratic one.
• Surprisingly, the Republic Of China also governs China.
• The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a democratic republic.
• The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is ... well, you know.
• Great Britain is just great!
• "Power drinks" are not just for weenies, in fact they do "give you wings."

Incidentally, there seems to be some question about how Aaron Clarey became "Captain Capitalism." Going theory here: frequently dropped on the head as an infant, combined with just unbelievable contempt for people who earn the title "Captain."

UPDATE: Wow, the laughs keep coming! Aaron responds to an operative from Team Clareywatch, questioning the intelligence of labelling the Nazis as leftists, with

But the nationalization of industry by the Nazi's would kind of make them live up to their political name's namesake.

Brilliant! Always stupider than you think possible. History is, it seems, bunk.

UPDATE UPDATE: Some of our usually kind supportive emailers from out there in cyberspace are expressing doubt that even Aaron is this stupid, despite lots of previous evidence. C'mon, guys, you could go look yourselves! But alright, just because I love you even when you're lazy farts, here's the PDF.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: No I'm not going to PDF it, but, the comments have continued and gotten weirder. And ya gotta think: given all the comments Aaron blocks, man, it's weird what he lets through. Enjoy, all - down the rabbit hole.

Lots in one package

You gotta admire "Captain Capitalism" Aaron Clarey for packaging as much hate speech as possible into a thin package. Right here, for example (PDF), he pulls off racism and sexism simultaneously while seasoning it with a little anti "Jesus freak" bigoty: a threefer! That's economic efficiency. Ya gotta appreciate the picture, so in case you're not clear on exactly what it is the "Mexican women or Chinese women" are willing to do for you, you know.

Ya gotta admire too -- few guys can so conveniently pull up soft porn pix of Chinese air stewardesses when they need them. Looks like Aaron's found an economically efficient alternative to dating, too.

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?