Now, we’re pleased to welcome him aboard as a contributor to Human Events Online. You can find his witty and hilarious work here each week.
Today, in his first contribution, Greg fields questions from the Benecia Elementary fifth grade class.
Should the U.S. take the neocon approach to the crises in Israel, Iran and North Korea or should America follow the diplomatic route?
Well, my theory about the Middle East is that it’s a lot like my smoking problem. I quit smoking all the time, because I know I never really have to enforce it upon myself. So I smoke, knowing I can stop, and then later start up again. It’s the same thing with the Middle East. You can pretty much lob bombs all over the place, and then stop, because you know you can always start up again later. Cease fires, really, are like me hopelessly trying to quit smoking. The only way to stop this is cold turkey. Or perhaps, bombing Turkey.
Anyway, we need to develop a nicotine patch large enough to slap over the Middle East. The patch should be made to deliver not nicotine, but continual doses of Stella Artois, a hearty beer with more than 5% alcohol.
Which reminds me kids: don’t do drugs and always drive sober. Who’s next? You in the back … with the rash.
This week Newt Gingrich said the United States and its allies were in the midst of World War III. Do you agree?
Not really Sally, and here’s why. It’s not WW3, because I do not accept that WW2 actually was a world war. It’s really only a world war when it’s seen from the U.S. perspective. But from the perspective of, say, France or Cindy Sheehan, Deepak Chopra or Michael Moore, World War II was really just a U.S.-led occupation. Do you think Noam Chomsky thinks France was happy about D-Day? I doubt it. Americans had no right to treat that country the way they did. Imagine what D-Day did to the fragile ecology of the Norman coastal wetlands. And we have made no reparations of any kind.
So, technically the Middle East could be WW2. Except that the Cold War was also kind of a war. And then there was that “War of the Worlds” thing that was on the radio back in the 1930s. And isn’t global warming a world war—a war that we humans are waging against the world? If anything is truly a world war, it would have to be global warming.
Which angers me. I get angry a lot. Sometimes I get so angry I pass out and then wake up hours later—still angry. I would see a doctor about it, but doctors make me angry too.
Really, who decides when something is a world war anyway? Is there a governing body made up of mid-level celebrities from each country that say “Yes, this is a world war.” There should be. I would like to be on that board, along with Jenna Elfman, C. Thomas Howell, and Chris Penn. No wait, he’s dead.
I am very impressed by these questions! Yes, you in the front row, with the headgear.
Is Newt the answer America is looking for in 2008?
—Seth, age 12
If the question is, “I need a reasonably attractive man to come by my house and give me a backrub,” then yes, he is the answer America is looking for.
But here’s the reason why Newt Gingrich is now all over the place making pronouncements about World War III. He knows it’s a scientifically proven fact that making those statements actually elevates your speaking fees by 49%. For example, if you would like me to speak at an event (which I am available to do) I would charge $75 plus beer money and cab fare. Sometimes I might ask for a small bag lunch—no peanuts, thank you, because I am allergic. But if you pack a lunch with a chicken salad sandwich and a pudding cup, then I’m pretty much yours.
But if I were to say to you now, that “We are on the verge of a war the likes of which we have never seen,” then I immediately would double that fee. Here’s another great announcement:
“If I were to come to your house on September 12, 2001 and say: in five years there will be a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, no terror attacks since 9/11 in the US, and the Hezbollah would be pushed out of southern Lebanon at the cost of 2,500 brave American soldiers,” you would probably pretty amazed. But you would also be disgusted because I would be wearing a dress.
One more question … yes … lazy eye…
How would you rate the UN’s performance dealing with these global conflicts?
—Annabelle, Age 12
Better than Green Day’s, Annabelle, but worse than Robert Goulet’s. The UN is better as a “dealer” than as a “performer.”
I say that because the UN has a great history in dealing with global conflicts. As long as your definition of dealing is “screwing everything up while making money off the pain and suffering of others.” But that sure is a weird definition for “dealing!” I would suggest getting a more accurate dictionary. I suggest the Pocket Oxford.
As long as the wars happen on shores away from my family and friends in cool places like America and England, then I am very content. And I think that is Kofi Annan’s main role—to make the people I would know feel safe. And he has done a great job at that. It pisses me off Kofi gets a bad rap. It’s a fact that the most trustworthy people on the planet are older black men with whitish hair. This is called the “Morgan Freeman” effect, and it has worked remarkably well for Morgan Freeman. But not for Tookie Williams.
I would like to thank everyone for coming here to today, and encourage all of you to help yourself to some lollipops. If you have any other questions, see me next period when I’ll be outside discussing the common misconceptions concerning Al Gore and the digestion of crayons.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter