My Yelp Review of This Mexican Microwave Dinner

Having spent 15 years in San Antonio, I should have known better than to purchase and consume a “Mexican food microwave dinner.” However, as is sometimes the case, my strange tastes led me into dangerous waters and I attempted to eat this for lunch today.

The first thing that is to be noticed is the cover picture on the box. The enchiladas, rice and beans look as though they have been arranged by Abuelita herself, lovingly, diligently, and with just the right touch of sass in Espanol. But upon opening the package, the customer is met with a disturbing sight: the hard and excellent work of Abuelita is gone, and it has been replaced with the quick work of what appears to be an elementary school cafeteria worker, cigarette dangling from her lips as she snarls directions to the frightened children. Apparently, she has run over the enchiladas with her Honda Accord first, then dumped them unceremoniously into the black cauldron that passes for a plate. She has separated the rice and beans—a major faux pas that is simply unforgivable—and has sealed everything with the familiar plastic lid of doom. The rice is congealed and caked together like a gelatinous pudding of rice-shaped shards of cardboard. The beans are only “beans” in the academic sense, having begun their origin story during the actual rebellion of Pancho Villa. 

The directions state that the plastic film is to be left on while you microwave this masterpiece at 4-4.5 minutes. In my experience, the rest of the world employs microwaves for the sole purpose of making food mildly warm on the outside and frozen solid on the inside—so I always opt for the higher number. This decision resulted in a bean-like lava that oozed underneath the cardboard-tasting tube that called itself an enchilada. The plate was impossible to touch, yet the food remained startlingly lukewarm, other than the bean-lava, which vaporized the plate in a Pompei-esque coating of hell.

This “Mexican microwave dinner” is an abomination in the sight of God—and Mexicans, and anyone who appreciates food. I cannot understand how the manufacturers of this product continue to stay in business, but apparently there are a lot of people who cavalierly buy this execrable excuse for a lunch.

I regret to confess that, for this one moment in time, I was one such jackwagon. May this Yelp review wave off any over-exuberant baserunners who are thinking of rounding the third base of hunger toward the force-out of food poisoning at home plate. You’re welcome.

I AM ABOUT TO POST MY OPINION ON SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT A COURT CASE I KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT

Yes, folks, get ready again: I’m comin’ at you full force with yet another opinion post on social media. And like all my opinions, this one is valid because…..it comes from me! I scrolled carefully through my social media feed, saw a news story that a friend posted, read it, immediately chose sides based on that reading, and now have a fully formed opinion that all of you have a right to read. I’m sorry I couldn’t put it on YouTube—that would have reached a larger audience, since no one really reads any more—but I couldn’t get YouTube to come out to the office.

Yes, I am about to post my opinion on social media regarding a court case that does not actually involve me at all. In fact, this court case isn’t really even in my town, or district. The jury verdict does not affect my life; it only makes one tribe cheer and the other tribe mourn.

I know what you’re thinking, Olds….and you’re wrong, as usual. Court cases USED to be decided by the rule of law, using jury trials made up of localized peers, in a localized setting, so that justice would be meted out legally and locally, which the Founders knew was the only approximation of justice we could arrive at in this world. And I know how much you Olds love the Founders. But times change, man. You’re living in the past, man. You need to get with the program and realize that once a court case makes it to my social media feed, MY sense of justice is aroused, and must be slaked like the bloodthirst I have for anyone who disagrees with me. The long arm of my emotion-driven legal opinion should stretch to all jurisdictions.

No, I didn’t go to law school. Why would I need to know anything about the law to have a valid opinion on a court case? No, I haven’t read the Constitution, which you Olds think is the law of the land. Who needs that crap? I know what’s “fair” and “equal” and “just” in my mind, and now you all are going to get a healthy dose of it. Besides, I watched enough SVU to get the gist of things.

No, I am not interested in the facts of the case. That’s, like, BORING. The possibility of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? The possibility of an acquittal because of reasonable doubt? None of that matters to me. I made up my mind about this case a long time ago, and the facts of the case have nothing to do with it. It’s all about the “underlying” issues that “feed into” a certain “narrative.” When I use those words, of course I really mean that underlying issues have become THE MAIN ISSUE for me. And that’s all that matters, isn’t it? Look: I kinda-sorta perused a half-baked news op-ed piece about an obscure court case that I know nothing about. Taking one underlying issue and making it THE MAIN ISSUE is my right as a half-baked American. And what matters to me, deep down, is my emotional response to all of it. My opinion matters because it comes from me, not because it is rooted in anything as Oldster as “fact,” “legality,” or “relevance.”

Besides, court cases aren’t where justice is served. That’s just the boring game we watch on television—while the rest of us pretend to have our own talk shows on social media, haranguing each other back and forth eternally for wearing the other tribe’s jersey. THAT’S where the real justice happens. Ginning up enough emotional hysteria on social media that people think of me as a warrior for justice.

You Olds talk a lot about “due process,” and “constitutionality,” and “presumption of innocence,” and “laws of discovery,” and “pre-trial motions,” but none of that matters to us, the ones who really matter. Scalps must be taken. Jobs must be removed. People must lose their occupations, their reputations, their dignity as human beings—because they are wearing the wrong tribal jersey. They’re on the wrong side of the jury verdict. Back in the day, every jury verdict resulted in grim and mournful sorrow on both sides: it is a solemn thing to witness actual justice in action. It was so grim, in fact, that we couldn’t handle a steady stream of it—we had to care only about the stuff that pertained to us locally. But now that we’ve taken over and redefined “justice” as “revenge,” these jury verdicts are really a time for either celebration or clinical depression—and that win-loss tribal cheering/jeering should spread to all jurisdictions.

Yep, I’m getting ready to post my opinion on social media about a court case that doesn’t really impact me at all. It’s not in my town, probably not my state, certainly not in my legal district. I wasn’t selected as a juror, I don’t know anything about the law, and most of my understanding about the case I’ve gleaned through social media. What more do you need, Olds? Get ready to endure my hot take on this court case. And get ready to get on board, or else. There is no room in the Brave New World we’re building for disagreement, nuance, or even “knowledge.” There is room for me and my opinion, which is valid because it is mine.

Which makes your opinion invalid, because it’s not.

But What About The Poor? Reflections on Government Paternalism

There are problems with the idea of government paternalism as the solution to the problem of “the poor”—a problem that Someone once told us would not be solvable by us in the first place. These problems are best illustrated by asking three questions.

1.      IS THIS SOMETHING GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO?

Because we are a nation of laws, rather than men, all policy ideas should necessarily begin rooted in principle, rather than mere pragmatism. Our Framers were understandably suspicious of strong, centralized authority. They had just seen the effects of concentrating too much power in one person or branch of government, and of giving government too much scope and responsibility. More important to them even than “equality” was the preservation of individual liberties—the guarantee that each individual citizen would have the guaranteed freedom. For this reason, the Framers designed a limited constitutional republic. They deliberately kept the “federal” portion of it quite small and limited. As Jefferson once opined, “a government big enough to take your income is big enough to take your life.” Since freedom comes with responsibility, the Framers envisioned a republic in which individuals were free to pursue their self-interests, and therefore responsible for those interests as well. Was there poverty in those days? Like nothing you’ve ever seen, actually…but the Framers dispersed governing power from a central apparatus to localities for the purpose of dealing with such problems. If my next door neighbor falls on hard times, it is my responsibility to help him, along with the other neighbors. If there are enough children in our neighborhood to go to school, we neighbors band together and voluntarily pool our resources to fund an “independent” school district. If we feel that we are all willing to pay extra in taxes to help the neighbor two streets over, we agree to do that through our local representation. With all important politics being local, there is no need for a big central apparatus to “fix” things or “provide things.” In fact, the Framers were so afraid of the dangers of an expanding government that they gave our federal government one job: security. Simply put, the government’s job is to protect me from you, you from me, and both of us from that guy over there. That’s it. And every time we’ve tried to put some new task onto the federal government—EVERY TIME—it has failed, miserably, consistently, and expensively. The Framers didn’t design a federal government to provide for people. Therefore, legally, constitutionally, the government SHOULD NOT be doing this.

Moreover, this premise is also the most immoral one of all, because it is predicated entirely on the confiscation of private property—as opposed to the voluntary local organization envisioned by the Framers. The usurpation of federal government’s apparatus in order to create some form of “equality” is the most odious use of all, for it cannot be accomplished without also squelching the individual liberties that the Framers envisioned. I gave over $12000 in charity last year, and the federal government collected almost twice that in taxes to boot. Tell me again how I’m not “paying my fair share.” What the New Testament speaks of is the $12000…..the forcible confiscation is not a biblical idea whatsoever.

2.      IS THIS SOMETHING GOVERNMENT CAN DO?

It’s now been more than 50 years since LBJ declared “war on poverty.” And it’s been almost 30 years since the first definitive, peer-reviewed research came out demonstrating how effective those programs have been. The answer: not very effective at all. In fact, the research indicates that almost all of those programs led to increased graft, corruption, and HIGHER unemployment and poverty rates. Additionally, sociologists, churchmen and other students of culture have repeatedly documented the loss of dignity, pride and work ethic among populations dependent on federal government. The Framers were right: Individuals must bear responsibility for their freedom, or it is worthless. The government spending from 1965-1995 can be directly connected to the decimation of the black family, the increase in drug use and other substance abuse in urban areas, and the decline in education in urban areas. When government TRIES to take care of people, it does so poorly, and is vulnerable to corruption (the stasis for all bureaucracy).

Meanwhile, local churches (like the one I pastor) are regularly involved in the provision for the poor. The idea that we “need” the government for this is tautological: the federal government is largely responsible for creating this vicious cycle of poverty among many Americans; now we’re supposed to get them to “fix” it? This thinking never ends well. Let private individuals and organizations do what they’re designed to do….believing that government “can” and “should” do this betrays a strange faith in central authority that is actually dangerous to all of us in the long run.

BUT CAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR REALLY ACHIEVE HELP FOR THE POOR?

How do you think it was done for the first century of our existence? Without an income tax at all, our nation expanded from coast to coast, developed a university system that was the envy of the Western world, and produced a literature and aesthetic that rivaled Old Europe (at least until the postmoderns came along). When someone asks this question, what they are really doing is betraying their suspicion that human beings can be generous—possibly a transference of their own generosity habits. This question has been asked and answered, and it’s still getting answered every single day of the week in towns and cities and communities around the nation. There isn’t a single thing being done by federal government (except security, its constitutional mandate) that isn’t also being done cheaper, better and more efficiently by the private sector. From space exploration to education to lawn care, we the people do a good job, while the government barely gets anything done at all. The real question that needs to be asked is, “Where did you come by all this faith in the federal government?” A rudimentary study of history will disabuse you of that notion in a hurry. The Framers trusted the citizens of these United States, and deliberately created a government that was too small to trust….and then inculcated all of our founding documents with a suspicion toward centralized authority. Do you honestly think you have thought through this better than they?