Blog Mirror: President Biden's Push to Make Things In America Again
This is really a major political and economic development, but it hasn't received much press:
Lex Anteinternet: Blog Mirror: President Biden's Push to Make Thing...
Lex Anteinternet: Blog Mirror: President Biden's Push to Make Thing...:
Lex Anteinternet: Today
Lex Anteinternet: Today:
Today
Today is Earth Day for 2023.
It's also the first weekend day of Spring Turkey Season, which I should be doing, but I'm in the office working, as the law never sleeps.
Or takes a weekend off.
And today is also Independent Record Store Day.
Lex Anteinternet: Sunday, April 22, 1923. Agrarian rise.
Lex Anteinternet: Sunday, April 22, 1923. Agrarian rise.: 
Sunday, April 22, 1923. Agrarian rise.
The British commenced their occupation of Rawandiz, in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurdish city is near the Turkish and Iranian borders. The United Kingdom was occupying the country under a League of Nations Mandate. The border was contested by the Turks, who had occupied the city only a year prior, which motivated the British to garrison the town.
The Bulgarian Agrarian National Union won the vast majority of the seats of the country's Parliament. The agrarian party is the only such party to come to power by a majority of votes being cast for it outright.
The party was a founding member of the International Agrarian Bureau and part of a strong rising agrarian movement in Eastern Europe. The movement would eventually spread to Western Europe as well, but the rise of Communism and World War Two would effectively destroy it and its influence waned. The Bureau dissolved in 1971.
Lex Anteinternet: Bud Light, controversy, and why are you drinking that stuff anyway?
Lex Anteinternet: Bud Light, controversy, and why are you drinking t...:
.JPG)
Bud Light, controversy, and why are you drinking that stuff anyway?
.JPG)
Real beer, made locally.
In one of the absurd American corporate efforts to get on the cutting edge of a social trend, irrespective of whether it's temporary, existentially justified, or related to the product, Budweiser released an advertisement with Dylan Mulvaney, a man claiming to be transgendered and who affects a very girlish persona, badly, in a cartoonish fashion. Indeed, it's an example of how those who claim to be transgendered men sometime affect a much more girlish behavior than girls do, and it's accordingly more than a little cartoonish. It's a pretty extreme example, which raises its own questions.
Mulvaney is apparently an actor, and came to prominence in the play The Book Of Mormon. I haven't seen the play and don't care to. I'm obviously not a Mormon, but I don't like people poking fun of, or making a satire out of, religious beliefs in that fashion. Eye of the Tiber or The Babylon Bee are one thing, but they aren't actually hostile to religion, and indeed the Bee has come to be controversial as it has started being satirical about society in general, from a general Christian prospective. The three person team who are responsible for The Book Of Mormon, however, are out of South Park, which is an aggressively nasty cartoon, and one of them is a stated atheist and the other, a theist who declares religion itself to be silly, something that shows a massive intellectual deficit on his part. It's sort of like saying that you believe in cars but find transportation silly. They aren't coming out of a prospective of love, suffice it to say, and while I haven't seen The Book Of Mormon, South Park is of the National Lampoon brand of humor which is juvenile, self focused, and mean. I don't know if Book takes a mean spirited approach to Mormons, but what I tend to find is that for people who live outside the Rocky Mountain West, the LDS faith isn't understood in any context at all, and people tend to think of them as 1) some sort of Protestant evangelistic faith, maybe like the Baptists, or 2) something that Warren Jeffs defines, or 3) a tiny silly group. None of that would be correct, and in the Rocky Mountain West the LDS church is a major institution, not some sort of odd joke. From a Christian prospective, particularly in from a Catholic one, there are a lot of things that could be taken on, discussed and critiqued about the LDS, but making fun of them in a sophomoric fashion is disrespectful and reflects very poorly on the people doing it and a society that finds it amusing.
My overall view of mine is that if you wouldn't feel comfortable making analogous jokes about Islam, you probably flat out avoid doing it about any other faith. In other words, if you are going to do a Book of Mormon, you ought to follow it up with The Koran in the same fashion.
That's not going to happen, nor should it either, as The Book Of Mormon shouldn't have.
But I digress.
Mulvaney decided he would affect the appearance of a woman, sort of, at some point and has affected an Audrey Hepburn like style, which nobody in this current age does. Hepburn's style was unique to herself, but she was a genuine, lithe, woman, who genuinely defined grace in her own era, and to a large extent still does. She wasn't girlish, but rather very mature while young at the same time, and frankly rising up in popularity as a reaction to the Playboy influenced huge boob actresses of the time, something that would actually see further influence in the 60s while really being limited, however, to movies and television. Mulvaney on the other hand, if truth be told, looks like a really anemic guy trying to look like a girl, and failing at an attempt to affect an appearance of an actress of a prior era, something he's tried to do in a TikTok series apparently called Days of Girlhood. It's really creepy.
For some weird reason, Budweiser thought he'd make a good spokesman for Bud Light.
Bud Light is awful, as are most of the mass-produced light beers. I don't know why anyone drinks it, which brings me to this, something that has nothing really to do with transgenderism.
Light beer, or American Light Lager as beer aficionados like to call it, is so popular in the US that even small local breweries brew it. Small local breweries have gotten really good, and they tend to put out a better product than huge industrial alcohol concerns like AB InBev, which owns Budweiser.
I really don't think average companies have any place in social movements of any kind. I'll make an exception for companies particularly associated with some sort of institution. So, for example, a company that makes backpacking equipment being involved in conservation, etc., makes sense to me. But beer is just beer. If there was a cause associated with beer, it would be combating alcoholism, but a cause like that wouldn't exactly sell more beer.
Here the decision was blisteringly odd. Is AB InBev trying to show its hip cool and down with the times, in a Justice Kennedy type fashion? The beer market is saturated (no pun), and therefore the only real option left is to try to grab somebody else's market share, but do people who claim to be transgendered constitute a self-conscious body when they buy beer, or are they just people buying beer?
I'm guessing they're just people buying beer.
Obviously AB InBev thought there was some market share to grab there, while not losing some, but as market decisions go, it seems like a rather odd one.
Oh well, it's worth noting that this is the same beer brand that once sent out paintings of Custer's Last Stand, although they probably had their actual market right at that time.
Anyhow, just buy local. If a microbrewery is boosting a cause, it's probably a local one, or one that's more focused, and it probably doesn't involve a cynical marketing effort like this does.
And indeed, just this past week I went to a local microbrewery and bought two small growlers of their beer. It actually did have a beer that it had brewed boosting a cause. I didn't buy it, but I did buy two of their other beers, to go with the first grilling attempt of the season. The brots I bought were from a local butcher.
There are other options out there, and given that there are, why would a person, causes aside, go with a bad massed produced beer, ever?
Lex Anteinternet: Sacrifice. What's Wrong With The World
Lex Anteinternet: Sacrifice. What's Wrong With The World:
Sacrifice. What's Wrong With The World
In the West, we just celebrated Easter. In the East, where the Old Calendar is sometimes used, it's today. This might mean, for the observant, that they were in Church the prior Sunday, in which case, for churches using the Catholic liturgical calendar, they heard this.
Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned,deeply regretted what he had done.He returned the thirty pieces of silverto the chief priests and elders, saying,"I have sinned in betraying innocent blood."They said,"What is that to us?Look to it yourself."Flinging the money into the temple,he departed and went off and hanged himself.
We all know, of course, that Judas was Christ's betrayer. Not too many stop to think that he was seized with remorse and hung himself.
Why was he so miserable?
Probably for the same reason that Western society, on the whole, is.
He thought of himself and chose his own inner wishes rather than being willing to sacrifice.
It's struck me recently that this is the defining quality of our age. We won't sacrifice and don't believe we should have to. It explains a lot.
Interestingly, in a matter of synchronicity, after I started writing this I happened to listen to an episode of Catholic Stuff You Should Know on Augustine's City of God and Lewis' The Great Divorce that ties in perfectly. It's here:
Also, a matter of synchronicity, we passed the 111th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic after I started this.
The wealthy men on board the doomed ship, and a lot of the other men, stayed on the sinking ship so that women and children would be saved. The men who went were largely the crew, needed to man the lifeboats as part of their tasks. Otherwise, men didn't complain, they just stepped aside so that as few women and children as possible wouldn't die. A Catholic Priest stayed with them to prepare them for entry into the next life. All of them were living up to a standard, but the interesting thing to note there is that it was a standard. They were heroic, but not because they exceeded the standard, but rather because the occasion came to apply it, and they unflinchingly did.
Now we shove women into combat, something that in any prior age would be regarded as an outright societal act of cowardice and a complete failure of male virtue.
We've come a long ways, all right. And not in a good way.
Sacrifice was almost the defining quality of any prior age, or at least those that preceded the late 1960s, and very much the defining quality of the 18th through mid 20th Centuries. Men would die before they'd let women and children be injured, and if they didn't, they'd be branded as cowards for the rest of their lives.
Most people married, and marriage was understood to have a sacrificial element to it in numerous ways. People didn't "write their own vows", the vows were part of the ceremony and they were, well, vows. Promises you weren't getting out of, in other words.
Latin Rite English wedding vows still reflect this. The entire series of events reads goes as follows.
First, the Priest asks a series of questions, to which the couple responds "I do", or words that effect:
(Name) and (name), have you come here to enter into Marriage without coercion, freely and wholeheartedly?""Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live?""Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?"
Only after ascent to that, the Priest reads:
Priest (or deacon): Since it is your intention to enter into the covenant of Holy Matrimony, join your right hands, and declare your consent before God and his Church.Groom: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my husband. I promise to be faithful to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.
The element of sacrifice is so strong in marriage, that in Croatia, a Catholic country, an added element is present, in which the Priest states:
You have found your cross. And it is a cross to be loved, to be carried, a cross not to be thrown away, but to be cherished.
That's really heavy. That's not a fuzzy bunny, flowery rose, type of view of marriage at all. You're signing up for a real burden.
But one to be cherished.
And that's the thing that the West has lost.
We don't want to sacrifice at all.
If you look at life prior to the late 1960s, sacrifice was darned near universal. Everyone, nearly, married and divorce was rare. People sacrificed for their marriages. Most married couples had children, and having children entailed sacrifice. Reflecting the common values of the time well, the screenwriter of The Magnificent Seven summed it up in this fashion in a comparison of family men to hired gunfighters:
Village Boy 2 : We're ashamed to live here. Our fathers are cowards.
Bernardo O'Reilly : Don't you ever say that again about your fathers, because they are not cowards. You think I am brave because I carry a gun; well, your fathers are much braver because they carry responsibility, for you, your brothers, your sisters, and your mothers. And this responsibility is like a big rock that weighs a ton. It bends and it twists them until finally it buries them under the ground. And there's nobody says they have to do this. They do it because they love you, and because they want to. I have never had this kind of courage. Running a farm, working like a mule every day with no guarantee anything will ever come of it. This is bravery. That's why I never even started anything like that... that's why I never will.
The line, "And this responsibility is like a big rock that weighs a ton. It bends and it twists them until finally it buries them under the ground." was literally true for many. Indeed, it's been noted that up until some point after World War Two Finland, which routinely comes in as the happiest country on Earth, had a very early male death rate, simply because the men there worked hard, and basically worked themselves into the grave for their families.
People were not, of course, perfect, and therefore children naturally arrived on the scene with an unmarried origin. Depending upon the age of the couple, that often ended up in a marriage before the child was born, adding an added element of sacrifice in which the couple sacrificed, in essence, an element of freedom or even their future for what they'd brought about. When that didn't occur, the child was more often than not given up for adoption, which involves an element of sacrifice, but because it arises in a different context, we'll not get too deeply into that.
Things tended to be focused on that fashion. There were people who didn't follow this path, but they were a minority.
This has been portrayed, since the 1970s, as some sort of horrible oppression. But the surprising secret of it is that people seem to be hardwired for it, and when it's absent, they descend into, well, a descent.
None of which is to say that sacrifices aren't present in the modern world. They are, although by and large society tries enormously to avoid them.
It's tried the hardest in regard to the natural instincts of all kinds. People are able to avoid nature, and so they do, least they have to sacrifice. But that's a sacrifice in and of itself, but for what?
The self, is what we were told initially. But the self in this context turns out to be for the economy. In a fairly straight line, we're told that you should avoid commitments to anything requiring commitment, so that you can get a good career, make lots of money, and go to Ikea.
Very fulfilling?
Ummm. . .
No, not at all.
In The Great Divorce, which I haven't read but which Catholic Things summarized extensively, Lewis placed a self focused Anglican Bishop in the role of the self-centered intellect. Self Centered is the epitome of the current age. And that self-centered role placed the figure in Hell.
We're doing a good job of that figuratively for the same reason, and literally as well.
Prior Related Threads:
Lex Anteinternet: 18,000
Lex Anteinternet: 18,000: 
18,000
That's the number of cattle killed in the explosion in Texas. 18,000 dairy cattle.
That's obscene.
I own cattle, and beef cattle at that. But this shows what's really gone wrong with the United States and the Western World. Everything has to be some sort of factory.
Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: What's wrong with the (modern, w...
Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: What's wrong with the (modern, w...:
Lex Anteinternet: What's wrong with the (modern, western) world, part 3. Our lost connection with animals.
ICELANDIC MILKMAID ON HER MORNING ROUND
This is a fine, sturdy pony standing so stockily for his photograph, and he can make light of his burden of buxom beauty with her heavy can of milk. She cares not for saddle or stirrups, for most of these island people are born to horseback, and her everyday costume amply serves the purpose of a riding-habit for this strapping Viking's daughter, with her long tresses shining in the breeze.
(Original caption, of interest here I wouldn't call this young lady "buxom" or "strapping", but just healthy. This might say something about how standards have changed over time.)
The other day, I posted this in a footnote on a completely different topic.
Lex Anteinternet: What's wrong with the (modern, western) world, par...:
4. One of the odder examples of this, very widespread, is the change in our relationship with animals.Our species is one of those which has a symbiotic relationship with other ones. We like to think that this is unique to us, but it isn't. Many other examples of exist of birds, mammals and even fish that live in very close relationships with other species. When this occurred with us, we do not know, but we do know that its ancient. Dogs and modern wolves both evolved from a preexisting wolf species starting some 25,000 to 40,000 years ago, according to the best evidence we currently have. That likely means it was longer ago than that.Cats, in contrast, self domesticated some 7,000 or so years ago, according to our best estimates.Cat eating a shellfish, depiction from an Egyptian tomb.We have a proclivity for both domesticating animals, and accepting self domestication of animals, the truth being that such events are likely part and parcel of each other. Dogs descend from some opportunistic wolves that started hanging around us as we killed things they liked to eat. Cats from wildcats that came on as we're dirty. Both evolved thereafter in ways we like, becoming companions as well as servants. But not just them, horses, pigs, sheep, cattle. . .the list is long.As we've moved from the natural to the unnatural, we've forgotten that all domestic animals, no matter how cute and cuddly they are, are animals and were originally our servants. And as real children have become less common in WASP culture, the natural instinct to have an infant to take care of, or even adore, has transferred itself upon these unwilling subjects, making them "fur babies".It's interesting in this context to watch the difference between people who really work with animals, and those who do not. Just recently, for example, our four-year-old nephew stayed the night due to the snow, and was baffled why our hunting dog, who is a type of working dog but very much a companion, stayed the night indoors. The ranch dogs do not. . . ever. The ranch cats, friendly though they are, don't either.
_Wolf.png)
.jpg)
I started this thread back in February, when the entire news on "transgenderism" really hit the fan, so to speak. Since that time there's been the filing of the sorority lawsuit in Laramie, a host of transgender mass shooting, and an absolutely freakish campaign by Budweiser in which a guy trying to channel a girl of the 1960s is sponsoring Bud Light. Anyhow, this thread was to tie into it somehow, but now a lot of time has gone by, and working seven days out of seven, etc., I've really forgotten what my brilliant point here was to be, more or less.
But I'll go on anyhow.
This photograph shows a young woman at work, doing something that counted, and doing it in a way that was very close to nature.
So does this one:
Mid Week At Work: Mail Carrier, 1915, Los Angeles
And also this one:
And this one:
The point here?
Well this.
We've gotten to the point where we don't deal with animals as they really are, daily. We also are at the point where a large percentage of the original WASP demographic of the nation (more on this shortly) has lost most of the values it originally had, and replaced them with very weak tea instead. And we've so removed ourselves from a state of nature, that most people don't have a grasp on what nature really is.
It's hard not to know the reality of the world if you live in it.
This past week, the Wyoming Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case in Casper in which the plaintiffs claim they suffered emotional distress as their two pet dogs were caught in snares which they claim were improperly placed on public lands by a trapper. Apparently, in a companion criminal case, the trapper was exonerated. The state land is very close to the city, which is a problem, but it's still state land, and still unincorporated.
Losing dogs is a tragedy, but emotional distress? This has never been allowed in the common law, as the law always held that the law is, basically, for people. If you can claim emotional distress due to the loss of a pet, why not anything?
Now, that sounds cruel, and I understand grieving over the loss of an animal. I've done it myself. That is, in fact, one of the things about owning pets. Normally, you outlive them, and if you are normal, you'll miss them when they die.
It's a part of life.
But emotional distress has been reserved, in the common law, for the loss of humans, based, in the end, for what we feel with the loss of a loved human being. Not an animal, no matter how loved.
And of course, up until recently, there was no such concept as a legally recognized animal for "emotional support". Support they did provide, but the bond was in a naturalistic way, not one for which the law afforded protection.
Have we lost something here?
I think we have, and it's connected with real work and real animals.
We'll explore What's Wrong With The World more in this series of threads, but here's one. Being connected with animals in a real sense, and not in the sanitary removed from nature sense, helped keep us real.
We've lost that.
It's hard to be obsessively focused on yourself, including your reproductive self, if you're around animals as animals, particularly great big ones that can hurt you.
And I'll bet the thought "I'm a girl, but I want to be a boy" didn't much cross the minds of Icelandic pony riding milkmaids, Oklahoman girl cowpunchers, or Los Angeles mounted mail carriers.
Related Threads:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 66th Edition. A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer up your pants.*
Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 66th Edition. A littl... : Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 66th Edition. A little song, a littl...
-
So, having published this screed over a period of days, and then dropping the topic, we resume with the question. Why, exactly, do you think...
-
Southern Rockies Nature Blog: Lettuce Get Down to Business : Photo from 1918 of the Mahon Ranch, west of Buena Vista. Pictured are Martha M...
-
I see Joe Salatin is at this event: Homesteaders of America Am I the only Agrarian in the world who isn't a Salatin fan? I can't eve...
