Too Clever By Half

There's an expression of some sort, along the lines of "too clever for his own good." This phrase came to mind as I read a letter to the editor in The Economist. I know, you're thinking "that's what you get for reading the goddamn letters to the editor," but I had a really good excuse--I was at an airport. There, that explains it.

The letter in question refers to a short article that The Economist had printed in the previous issue, detailing the latest developments in the Elgin Marbles controversy. If you are unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, the Elgin Marbles are a series of sculptures that come from the exterior of the Parthenon; when it was under Turkish occupation, the British Lord Elgin made a crooked deal with the Turks and made off with these friezes, losing a couple along the way (but no matter). As a result, the Brits have been in possession of one of Greece's greatest treasures for the past 200 years, as both sides and their museums sniped back and forth.



I will concede that at one point there was good enough reason to let the marbles stay in London: it was unsafe under the Turkish occupation, the pollution was enough that it could seriously damage the marbles, and London provided a great outlet for worldwide access as many people visit the British Museum. Now all these points are moot, especially considering the brand new state-of-the-art Acropolis museum that was built. And whaddyaknow, there's a space all ready for the return of the friezes (facing the correct direction no less--the Brits have them facing inwards instead of outwards). The Economist, trying to prove itself as the statesman above petty squabbling, suggested the only sensible solution: The Brits maintain ownership, while sending the marbles on loan to Greece.

Uh, WTF, ol' chap. You assholes have it exactly backwards--there is no question of ownership (the statues are clearly Greek, anyone can see that, and they don't need no fancy law-talking guy to tell them that), but if we're going to compromise, fuck it, London can hold on to the Marbles for a little bit, maybe having a nice going away party for them.

While the magazine once again proved the rule about British arrogance, the truly infuriating item came from the responses. The most intriguing (and most retarded) came from a gentleman by the name of Robert Ingle from Corvallis, Oregon, who attempted some sort of historical argument. He argues that the marbles were built on funds provided by the Delian League. Those funds were supposed to pay for defense, but as government funding tends to do, some of the money ended up going towards the creation of these sculptures (I mean, really, Mr. Ingle, that stuff NEVER happens today). The gentleman then indicates that in the interest of moral fairness that the marbles be returned to the people that paid for its construction, those that reside in the city-states of the Delian League. And since most of these were located in the Eastern Aegean, that would mean returning the marbles to...Turkey.

Robert Ingle, you ignorant slut.


First of all, thatt's quite an amazing display of mental gymnastics that you employ to ascertain ownership of the Marbles to only these particular people, and ignoring the fact that you know, Athens was the head of the Delian League. I mean, since California and New York pay the most in taxes, does that mean that they should claim ownership of everything that the United States produces? This is just pure nonsense. One might even call it bongtarded.

The problem is, Robert, you really attempted to be too clever with your next assumption, and that's where you get into real trouble. Back in the time of the Delian League, who do you think made up the citizenry? Umm...Greeks. You fucking idiot. I'm sure you wanted to impress some comely Beaver Gal with your impressive knowledge of ancient history after taking that one class at OSU, but this is just painful. Greeks want their artwork back, and even by your convoluted logic, they should STILL get them back. Turkey would have no claim whatsoever, under any circumstances, since they didn't populate the area until, oh, centuries later. What you proposed, was sheer stupidity. IT JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

Ugh, I need to relax and just watch kittens ride a Roomba or something.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Now I haven't used the blog to rant too much about easy political targets like Sarah Palin, leaving that job to HuffPo's rabid denizens and the illiterate commenterati that populate the CNN Political Ticker. God knows she's deserved some comment, but even though she's shown incredibly thin skin (she can call John Kerry a horse-face but how dare you say she looks like a slutty flight attendant) and has displayed an amazing lack of intelligence (see: everything she's ever said in public), but she's too easy a target. In other words, the job is too easy and has already been done for us.


That was before this past Fourth of July weekend, when Sarah Palin decided to, I shit you not, "declare her independence from politics as usual", as per her lawyer. Among other things, she was tired of the jokes about her. Yes, the person that ran last November for the position of backup to the most powerful office in the world (and most likely would eventually be called up to be the starter) decided to quit her job as Governor just 2 and a half years into her term, partially because of jokes. Let's let that sink in for a bit.

But this isn't the reason that I'm finally talking about Palin. No, I'm doing all this because I just want to analyze her most recent comments to the press, explaining her decision.

Palin: 'I am not a quitter; I am a fighter'

No Sarah. No no no no no. You have it exactly fucking backwards. Let me break this down for you, so you comprehend the idiocy that you have unleashed upon us.

YOU QUIT. Ergo, you are a quitter. You quit because you were tired of fighting ethics complaints, a legislature that was pissed off at you, and just in general doing the work of a Governor. Quitting is the exact thing that you just did. In other words, when the chance came for you to fight, you did not fight. WORDS DO NOT MEAN WHATEVER YOU WANT THEM TO MEAN! So the revised statement should be:

I am not a quitter fighter. I am a fighter quitter.

Hopefully this lesson proves useful to you, Sarah, as you fill out the rest of your term going on fishing vacations instead of spending that last month actually governing. I mean, you're gone at the end of the month, but why wouldn't you put off that fishing trip? If not, just be sure to blame the vagaries of the English language on Obama, because it's probably his fault.