En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/05/22/1005

May 22, 2009 10:05 AM - Woozle
Woozle said...

Re Coulter: wrong, and wrong. How does Hollywood glorify unwed births? Please give at least 3 examples from major motion pictures. Examples must specifically celebrate how wonderful it is that the offspring's parents weren't married, rather than celebrating other aspects of the story such as the offspring's triumph over adversity in spite of being born out of wedlock. Clinton helped cause the mortgage crisis? I realize you might not have read about this if you don't read liberal blogs much (and the conservative blogs certainly wouldn't have passed on the tip, much less the mainstream media), but that claim was quickly shown to be hollow, for those to whom this wasn't already obvious. Give me a break. Next they'll be blaming Obama for The Great Depression, because policies he supports are in agreement with Roosevelt's actions which they will erroneously claim made the Depression worse rather than helping... oh wait, they already tried to pull that one too.

source

May 22, 2009 11:49 AM - Woozle
Woozle said...

Re overcrowding: I'm talking about two things: (1) personal preference -- the world (and my corner of it) is already plenty crowded for me, thanks, (2) we are already consuming in excess of the world's production capacity -- hence rainforests being destroyed to make toilet paper, "drill baby drill" to try and increase petrolium supplies (which is pathetic, because domestic reserves are tiny compared to those we mainly depend on), Bush deciding that we desperately need to return some public lands to commercial use, etc. (3) it's all very well to say that "it's just a problem of distribution"*, but until you solve that problem, STFU about having enough resources for everyone, ok? *Actually, what you said earlier (that I didn't respond to) was that it was "a product of failures in resources, not over-reproduction." DUDE! That's what over-reproduction IS -- when you don't have enough resources to meet your population! Geez, that's like a driver saying "no, I didn't wreck the car, I just experienced a high-speed impact with an immovable object." "The simplest answer is that you cannot build an economy on gay couples or white collar workers who historically don't produce as many children."We have plenty of children. If anything, we need more gay couples to help absorb the over-production. (I've said this before, and you ignored it.) Negative birthrate = good, as far as I'm concerned, at least until we get the planet down to something like a billion or two (whatever the best estimates are of the planet's sustainable carrying capacity given current technology... I know I've seen an estimate somewhere of what this number would be, and it sure as hell isn't 6.67 billion. Maybe some day it will be, but where's the effing conservatism in saying we can borrow against the future just so we can have as many kids as we want? Where's the effing conservatism in fighting every effort to develop sustainable technologies so we could afford those kids?  I mean, have you ever been to SF? To someone raised in North Carolina, it seems plenty crowded... and cities tend to be more affected by job-related migration than local birthrate, anyway, as I understand it. If a lot of gay San Franciscans are acting as a sink for excess child-production, then conservatives ought to be thanking them. "And a healthy birthrate is an indicator of a vibrant middle class." ...but when it's the lower classes having a healthy birthrate, then it's a problem. Right. This is obviously some strange new usage of the word "indicator". -- "instead of taking the liberal do-what-you-want-and-the-government-provides-a-safety-net route they believe the government should use its leverage to encourage more desirable behaviors..."Remind me again -- which party was it that tried to use government leverage to stop irresponsibility on Wall Street while it was still small and cute, and which party blocked those efforts?

source