Listen to Glenn because he's a CPA.

I spotted the following on my facebook feed this morning as I quickly scanned through the "facebook junk" (one of my friends lamented about Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement; it was a shallow lament, and the responses that followed were equally shallow) before starting my day. This was the original post that was posted by my peer regarding minimum wage:

Many pointed out it was flawed. It most likely is since it's a meme. But it wasn't the OP that stood out, it was the this response by a man named Glen:

Did you read what Kira wrote? I hope you did. Did you let it sink in? She talked about "basic economics" - sorta like common sense but not really, at least in her mind. I'm not sure what "American economic system" she was taught or read about because apparently, in her mind, the "American economic system" needs an unemployed class in order to function and at the same time the evils that are alive also don't want social programs that help these poor workers. Wait, I've seen this concept before. I find this rather ironic given what Glen said about memes. Kira implies that the American economic system relies on a poor working class as opposed to a more egalitarian economic system like, I don't know, Sweden maybe (I just threw in Sweden because that's the favorite country of many who use the vernacular and tone that Kira does). Let's move onto Glenn's post, a more involved post.

Glen states he has "facts" and by looking at his post he seems he has facts (just look at all those numbers!) but he doesn't. He has a hypothetical situation. Though Glen does most of the math correct he doesn't factor in how a higher minimum wage affects business owners, big and small. He just concentrates on how much milk a poor working class person can buy. This is ironic given the fact he stated he majored in business economics (do you really need a degree in business economics and be a CPA to do figure out the math? No). The biggest irony here is that he is irritated with original poster for posting a meme that supports her worldview (not supporting a higher minimum wage technically isn't a worldview ... but it is to Glen), saying it's a fallacy, all the while pulling the fallacy of authority. Now you should listen to me because I'm a CPA who majored in business economics. Okay, I'm listening. My question, Glenn, have you ever owned a business, and if so are you currently paying your employees the $15 minimum wage?

Of course, Glen's post started off with smugness and ended with arrogance. I got the facts and I have the credentials. Somewhere in between the "facts", which any person with a decent amount of arithmetic skills can perform, there probably is a strong argument for the positive affects of raising the minimum wage. How he goes about doing the math reminds of this scene in *Dave -

 

But the naive aren't aware that it isn't that simple. It truly isn't. It works on an individual level, yes, but federally this type of simplistic approach is juvenile.

If only we listened to CPA's, the "American economic system" would be something oh so much better than it currently is.

The original poster actually blushed when she read his post, admitting that he was an educated man but at least defended herself by stating about the effects of inflation. I'm sure Glen will have a follow up. The effect Glen wanted was achieved: he wanted to feel superior to the meme and her. He built intimidation and shame by flashing his credentials - it wasn't so much about the "facts," since if it were he'd leave out his formal education and address his argument as a counter. If he were a truly educated man he'd address the totality of the argument. But he doesn't. He just does arithmetic.

*Financial literally is extremely important. I advise everyone to learn how to balance their own budget, make necessary adjustments to live within their budget, and restrain from expenses that aren't vital or necessary to their lives.

Whether in your political group or not.

Atheists of the Gnu strain, regardless if they align with your politics, are no friends to Catholics and Christians, even the liberal Catholics and Christians.

Dating preferences in Weimerica.

I've notice something strange when it comes to modern dating and the process of choosing a significant other. Here's what I've observed.

A: Love knows no boundaries* (mainly talking about same-sex coupes and interracial couples).
B: Okay, well what about when a person says he is attracted to a certain ethnicity, say Hispanics over an Asian?
A: That's their preference.
B: Okay, well how about a person who wants to keep their ethnicity/culture intact and only wants to date within their own race?
A: That's approaching racism.
B: Can't it be preference?
A: No, because what I'm talking about is sexual and romantic attraction. A utilitarianism approach is racism. The heart wants what it wants.
B: Okay, what if I say a girl won't date a guy shorter than she is, say all the guys under 5'8 are basically out of luck.
A: Another preference.
B: Wouldn't it be a very shallow preference and borderline petty? If people are encourage to date outside their own ethnicity and culture, when can't women be encouraged to re-analyze their preferences?
A: You're committing sexism. Your utilitarian approach is discrimination.
B: What ethnicity preference and height preference is also discrimination.
A: I wouldn't say that. It's a preference. It's not systemic.
B: Okay, let's move away from dating preferences. How about ACT/SAT scores? You need a certain test score and GPA to not automatically be rejected by certain schools and programs. Why isn't there a whole movement about this? This would be considered systemic discrimination.
A: In some ways that's different as well. But see here - underprivileged kids, those who are/were historically marginalized and oppressed, should not subjected to such measurements. It's unfair.

So I guess not everyone and each scenario is not created equal.

* It has come to a point where the social sciences, and even "science", has encouraged straights to dabble in bisexuality aka sodomy.

Non-meat eaters. LOL.

As I said before, unless it's for religious reasons, as in your religion prohibits you from eating any meat, or you can't eat meat due to dietary issues (you can't digest meat well), then reasons for eliminating it is not really persuasive.

Really? Who cares if India has 500 million non-eat meaters. It's fuckin' India. They don't produce Olympic wining athletes. 16 million in the US is about 5% of the population of the country. It's like saying 5% of the population is not straight and therefore the 95% of those not straight probably should experiment with bisexuality. As for China? Let me guess, the China Study.

Non-meat eating is the "new" secular religion in the world. It's a cult, sorta. It's very much like thinking global warming should be an international concern where everyone relies on solar powered everything.

But there was sanity at another site -

He's basically on point on how meat eaters become non-meat eaters. (No, this isn't the same as non-believers reading the Bible and converting.) They read a book (China Study) and then watch a movie (usually Food Inc.) and BOOM almost over night they join the cult. This is way different from religious reasons. I'm sure about his #1 and though his #2 is too vague. A certain diet can "cure" a rotund body. Keep reading.

I lost about 25 pounds by eating 4 oz. of chicken every single day, white rice, 4 oz of farmed fish and frozen veg. It wasn't a short process - about four months. I eliminated processed food as well. Before that I wasn't active due to my job, so I changed that inactive lifestyle and started to exercise daily for about an hour (running and light resistance training).

I don't buy into the cow fart argument. I don't buy into the whole sentient being shit. I'm highly skeptical of the bible called China Study. Also why have most of the non-meat eaters I've come across have been women? Very few have been men.

Moderation when eating meat is key. Food portion is key. Exercising is key.

GoldRushApple vs John C. Wright

I think Wright is an intelligent man and I admire his move from atheism to Christianity, Catholicism to be exact. What I don't admire is his strange inability to actually comprehend what a person is saying if he believes they are insulting him. The man is not gifted in that department. In a post of him defending good teachers, where the notion "those that can't do, teach" is popular among the right, I wrote the following:

 

"Why you have insulted me, squire!"

"No I didn't."

Now that's quite the claim that Wright dishes about himself. The "most flexible, strong and finely tuned instrument a modern education can produce" he writes about his own mind. Hmmm, a product of a decent education maybe, but the most of X? Not even close. I've come to notice this about Wright. He thinks highly of his intellect and part of his hubris is deserved: he sees through the bullshit of modernism and when he does he skewers them, but so can others who aren't named John C. Wright.

Of course I should've been more clear in my explaining. I followed up with a post that I was attacking mainstream conservatives - those that see no need in the Great Books, or a liberal arts education, or many other things where liberals support or at least see great value in (big clue: that's why they dominate faculty positions in the liberal arts & sciences departments nationwide). Now, if Wright is the erudite product of which he claims to be he'd see this. But I get the feeling he doesn't.

This also brings me to a similar verbal altercation that Wright had with another poster. The poster on his site was asking if whether or not he attended an NO (Novus Ordo) mass or a EF (Latin Mass or Extraordinary Form) mass since he became a Catholic. For whatever reason Wright took offense, thinking that he was calling an inferior Catholic for not practicing rituals, or something to that effect. It was seemingly an innocent question but apparently Wright saw it as an attack. It's a simple yes or no question, but Wright failed to answer. Here, I'll put myself in that situation -

"Hey, you're a Catholic, right?"
"Yes. Or at least I try."
"Do you attend NO or EF?"
"NO since that's what's available. I'm trying to attend an EF mass hopefully in the upcoming years."

Damn that was hard to do.

I'll try to update this post if he responds back. I get the feeling he won't admit to his blind spot that is a product of his own hubris, accusing me of heresy on behalf all intelligent men. It's okay. It's the internet after all and as intelligent and brave of a man Wright is he is in need of an education on how mainstream conservatives treat the arts and liberal arts.

And yes, my avatar is that of a storm trooper. I am a Star Wars fan. 

EDIT: Wright has apologized, so we were both wrong. I in thinking his hubris has anchored him into an abyss of I-can-do-no-wrong and he in misconception.

New link added.

This one's called 1PeterFive. It's a site dedicated to issues about traditionalism and its eroding and shrinking presence against the "modern" Church of Nice (not the city).

Aesthetically it's a nice looking site. I do like the masthead; the logo of the site looks like an equation though.

Topics that I liked that were discussed were sacred music, communion on the tongue while kneeling and vocations towards the religious life. The writers appear to be intelligent and thoughtful, engaging not so much in navel-gazing, like how contributors at Social Matter can be, but in a more less self-important way of calling out for attention towards a certain issue, all while talking about religion and its many aspects.

'Extreme' Catholic traditionalists vs Theology of the Body.

I've recently learned that some traditionalist circles, some would deem them extremists even, are at odds with Saint John Paul II's Theology of the Body (TOB) and Chris West, a prominent advocate and presenter of the late Pope's famous (or infamous, if you're an 'extreme' trad) work.

Now I think TOB is quite good when it concerns sex and sexuality, and being someone who recently is taking his faith more seriously I was rather disappointed to learn that TOB is not liked at all in some circles in the traditionalist strain. I sort of view this like when I started actually cooking for myself. I was learning how to be more independent and learning through trial & error. I got better at certain dishes and I found out I was good at making various breakfast items. I learned that when it came to lunch my creativity lacked. I also learned that making dinner was plain fun.

Imagine thinking of what type of meat you'll purchase from the butcher to make that awesome dinner recipe Gordon Ramsey made in a mere 5 minutes on yotube. He's your "man". Soon after you come across non-meat eaters -- vegetarians and vegans. They say meat is bad and that one should abstain from meat entirely if you truly care about animals and not add to the deteriorating health of Mother Gaia (cow farts and whatnot). Now if you follow their advice you can't make that Gordon Ramsey dinner. In fact, you cut out a good portion of all the dinners you want to try. You feel deflated. You're just sharpening you cooking skills and a group of people say nope, sorry, put that brisket back. That brisket is murder. That brisket is an injection of poison to your body as well as to the earth. What? you think your yourself. You buy the brisket anyways. The non-meat eaters then throw around all these arguments, some paragraphs long (much longer than this post), that seem sorta right yet sorta off. What? That's how I feel when I think about the 'extreme' trads and their issues with TOB.

Like the non-meat eaters, those who are vehemently against TOB haven't said explicitly why it's a bastard work besides "ew modernity." I don't like modernity but c'mon. You got to  give me more than that. They write long paragraphs, typing much, but saying very, very little.

I'm taking TOB and I'm gonna enjoy it and proclaim it's rather good. If any Christian or Catholic asks about it or if the topic of sexuality and family comes up I'll recommend it.