We had never suspected that Henry "Economist" Gómez's talents included self-caricature of the pictorial kind (although he's a master of the written kind). But he has posted a credible caricature of himself in the act of scraping something that looks like little people from his shoe. Has Henry really grown to such size that he now threatens the lives of passing pedestrians with his avoirdupois? Or are those gingerbread men that fell on the floor while Henry was consuming his breakfast this morning? The drawing is open to many interpretations since no words accompany his little masterpiece.
He's going to be a busy camper deleting the comments that his caricature is likely to elicit. Of course, that might be a welcome change of pace since Babalú does not elicit many comments nowadays, or what comments it receives are "not fit to print."
What does it mean? Henry's puzzled readers ask.
Here is his answer:
"The beautiful thing about images is that everyone can interpret them however they [sic] like [sic]. But obviously there are some people the size of coachroaches [sic] crawling around out [sic] the feet of a bigger man."
I think the reason Henry didn't include words in his post is that he is, literally, speechless for once. Look what a fine mess he made of that sentence. Out of common respect for my readers, I feel that I must correct it:
"The beautiful thing about images is that everyone can interpret them however [he] like[s]. But obviously there are some people the size of [cock]roaches crawling around [at] the feet of a bigger man."
A Babalú reader complained that Henry's explanation "says nothing" and Henry expanded on it:
"Without getting too deep into it, there are douchebags out there that think they can viciously attack a female contributor to this blog and not expect the editor to do or say anything about it. And furthermore when the editor called their bluff they think that they can spread calumnies about said editor. And even furthermore there are sanctimonious sons of bitches out there who have stolen thousands of hours from the taxpayers blogging at their government jobs that think they can repeat the calumnies. Well maybe they can. But it doesn't matter really, does it? At the end of the day they are still coachroaches [sic], douchebags and sanctimonious time stealing weasels and Babalu is still an island on the net without a bearded dictator."
OK, the game is up, and it has not gone the way that Henry envisioned. Expect this comment from Louis to be deleted at any moment if not the entire post/thread (unless they really are desperate for comments):
"Ah, I see. The KillCastro affair. While they can be a bit strident in their criticisms and have their moments of being douchebags, your side does not seem to be on the side of the angels either. I have loved this blog from the day I first read it. It has given voice to the aspirations that we Cuban-Americans have for a free Cuba. However, I have, as have others, been put off by how thin-skinned and crass its editors can sometimes be in regards to criticisms, however benign, from those who dare to disagree with them and the blog's prevailing opinion. I hope that Babalu and other Cuban-themed blogs will adopt a more moderate tone and come together for a free Cuba, regardless of our differences on achieving that end."
I don't agree with Louis' moral relativism. The Babalunians, however, will object to his morality.
Henry has allowed Louis' comment to stand and answered it with the most candid admission ever made in the history of Babalú:
"We don't allow propaganda to be posted on this blog or in the comments. If that makes us strident, then so be it. But there are people out there that are your friends one day and destroying you the next. I don't have the time or energy to deal with paranoid schizophrenic idiots that are living in a world of their [own]. Guys that have big balls hiding behind the curtain of anonymity."
They don't "allow" their own contributing editors to post what they want on Babalú. That's a new one. Everybody already knows that they have never allowed commenters to.
As I predicted this is going to be the worst day in Henry's blogging career (well, aside from the time he nearly got Biscet killed). Louis' rejoinder floored him:
"Hope you don't mean that I'm propagandizing. If so, allow me to disabuse you of that notion right now. As we say her in Texas, "I've got no dog in this hunt." However, if someone chooses to employ a nom de guerre and remain anonymous, while that shouldn't hold him above reproach, there are usually pretty good reasons why someone chooses to remain anonymous. If you blogged under another name, would that undermine your credibility in any way? I don't think so. Balls, or lack of, don't have anything to do with it."