Taste This and Gag
On these silly podcasts a notorious if sporadic blogger and I have been wasting time on, one of the topics I’ve been grousing about is foodies, many of whom I find irritating. It’s a long story that gets tedious and preachy, better left as occasional rude quips and needling. But — pardon the expression — this one takes the cake:
Caught up at the [UC Davis] demonstration, a local food critic who goes by the one-word name of Budz harshly criticized the application of pepper spray by campus police. “You can’t imagine how horrible this experience was for somebody like moi ,” he wailed to reporters, rolling his reddened eyes. “My whole life is about taste and scent and texture, and having that poison sprayed point blank in my sensory centers was sheer torture. Besides, the peppers used are barbaric — some kind of cheap cayenne/jalapeno mix instead of ripe habanero or Scotch Bonnets, which, with their more delicate skins and seed to fruit ratio, make for a better pick on the tongue and lips and mouth feel.” — LA Gor-May
You go, Budz. And you’re right — that’s just savage. The appropriate treatment for a knob like yourself would have been a cattle prod to the prostate gland.
Worst. Congress. Ever.
Usually David Brooks irritates me as effectively as a pepper or a prod, but I like what he wrote yesterday:
“Grover Norquist’s tax pledge isn’t really about public policy; it’s a chastity belt Republican politicians wear to show that they haven’t been defiled by the Washington culture.”
It seems like the polls have finally started to make sense, too: the latest reveal a 9% approval rating by the American people of their Congress. Single digits. Back a few months when it was about 30%, I wondered who the hell those nitwits were, so it’s a relief to see they wised up. I imagine the 9% still wandering around drooling are family members and citizens too obtuse to understand the question.
Us and Them
In a brief and insightful essay, Prof. Tyler Cowen (George Mason University) breaks down the foundations on which both contemporary wingnuts and moonbats base their economic ideology, finding flaws in not only their reasoning, but also the data they cite to justify their positions on non-economic areas such as sociology and culture. This is the sparkly gem that caught my eye: “Modern conservative thought is relying increasingly on social engineering through economic policy, by hoping that a weaker social welfare state will somehow promote individual responsibility.”
“Social engineering” is a loaded term anyway, usually wielded by wingnuts to criticize the heavy and unwanted hand of government intrusion into the private affairs of its citizens, such as the right to hate, discriminate against people that don’t look like themselves, own persona arsenals of weapons designed for warfare, and invade the family life and bodies of pregnant women. But virtually everything the government does could be described as “social engineering,” starting with levying taxes. Toss in building roads, and funding the arts, and providing subsidies to ethanol producers while you’re at it.
Moonbats scream ‘racist” when universities’ affirmative action programs get torpedoed, while wingnuts rail against an intrusive nanny state that takes lead paint off the shelves at Finnaren and Haley. As always, it all depends whose ox is gored and no, that’s not a reference to fatted Al.
Have a great holiday, everyone.