BBQ Bushwa

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke7/7/16
When Liberals Drive Other Liberals More Batty than They Already Are  •  It’s funny that liberals try to advance the caricature of the stuffed-shirt conservative. It’s projection, actually, because “killjoy” could be synonymous with “progressive.” From demonizing toy guns to banning dodgeball and sweets to stigmatizing innocent jokes as “racist” to, generally, ensconcing everyone in bubble wrap, never was a rainbow born the libs couldn’t turn gray (except, you know, for the rainbow cause they’re obsessed with). A good example of this is a recent Lost Angeles Times article titled “How vegetarians, gluten-frees, grain-frees and other L.A. food tribes ruined my BBQ tradition” (a.k.a. “How Being around Liberals Really Stinks”).

It was written by one Robin Rauzi, who informs, “Anyone who knew my wife and me knew that on Friday night we would be on the patio, grill fired up.” Therein lies the first indication of the problem: Rauzi doesn’t have a wife.

Rauzi is female herself and apparently had a faux marriage, which means she has a wife as much as I did when, in first grade, I participated in a momentarily popular aping-adults pretend game and announced “I married Lisa.”

So when at issue are Lost Angeles liberals, is it any surprise they’d turn a barbeque into a bolsheque? Liberals have damaged the tradition (and institution) of marriage, foreign policy, the economy, education, entertainment, the media, our immigration regime, demographic integrity and, basically, everything meeting with their reverse-Midas touch. Why would barbeques be an exception? The only surprise is that Rauzi’s comrades haven’t ostracized her for emitting grill-disgorged greenhouse gases.

But Rauzi tells us that hot dogs and hamburgers were off the menu because her “wife” stopped eating beef; she also informs that due to a neighbor’s dietary restrictions — “no mammals” — they one summer “grilled a lot of variations on chicken and turkey sausage.” I’m not sure if this is driven merely by species-centric prejudice and patriotism (I’m assuming the neighbor is a mammal), but I’d like to hear the explanation of how it’s more moral to eat a mother hen than, let’s say, a dormouse, which was a delicacy in ancient Rome. The difference seems likely to be that, given our modern sensibilities, liberals may author mouse-like foreign policy but find eating one pretty disgusting. But they fancy chicken yummy.

Rauzi then writes of a new semi-vegetarian attendee who wouldn’t eat fish and of how the no-mammal-eating mammal “developed a mysterious stomach ailment that required avoiding hard-to-digest fibrous vegetables, such as lettuce, kale, spinach and pretty much anything else you’d use as the basis for a salad. And corn on the cob.” Rauzi also tells us, that Mrs. No-mammal’s “husband began contributing barley or bulgur grain salads. Around the same time, the book ‘Grain Brain’ became a bestseller, blaming whole grains for everything from Attention Deficit Disorder to dementia. He took home a lot of leftovers.” Then she informs that the next restriction involved the general fear of sugars and gluten, the latter of which is a huge money-making con (gluten is absolutely fine unless you’re the rare person with Celiac disease).

The result was that Rauzi’s bolsheque was suspended. She explained, “My communal barbecue was now fully populated by people who would not or could not eat the same food.” But here’s what escapes her: This is a metaphor for the problems of liberalism and what it visits on the wider society.

It’s what happens when you try pandering to every little minority, when you forget that the “good of the many outweighs the good of the few” and confuse minorities having rights with minority rule. You don’t make a barbeque a bolsheque because the odd person is confused about his eating any more than you should completely rewrite the whole of society’s bathroom policy because the odder person is confused about his sex.

As for food-oriented events, let’s get something straight: It’s extremely rude to expect a host to accommodate your every dietary whim. I eat what’s served when I’m a guest, to be polite, whether I like it or not. After all, what are we? Children?

Speaking of which, a commenter under Rauzi’s piece mentioned that it’s even worse if you have finicky youngsters, because then you have to jump through culinary hoops every day.

Huh?

This is also liberalism: treating kids as if they’re princes and princesses. I didn’t like everything my mother served — notably sweet potatoes — but I knew I had to eat it; there was no other option. Good training, too, because it teaches children the right kind of tolerance (for objectively good things you don’t happen to like) and reflects the idea that you appreciate whatever’s on your plate, as it’s a gift from God and someone labored to prepare it for you. And do you think children living for most of history, when diets were very limited, could choose their menus? For sure, an idle mind makes the Devil the chef.

As for barbeques, I attended one Sunday in another den of iniquity — New York City — and some at the gathering were certainly quite liberal. Guess what? There were pig-in-blanket hors d’oeuvres, tortilla chips, hot dogs, hamburgers, pork ribs, gluten-replete bread, soda and sweets for dessert. Everyone ate and no one complained. So here’s some advice: if you experience anaphylactic shock when a neighbor calls his daughter “Peanut,” if you won’t eat anything that “has a face” (nothing has a face by the time it’s on my plate), if you make diet your religion, if dinner to you is an occasion for moral preening,   gatherings centered around normal people consuming large quantities of food probably aren’t your bag. Stay at home and cuddle with your bean sprouts and tofu.

So liberals killed the Rauzi bolsheque just as they kill civilization. Oh, Rauzi desires to resurrect her event, even though it appears a fruitless endeavor, saying, “I want very much to have the kind of home where people can just stop by and feel welcome no matter what food tribe they are in.” But this is another liberal delusion. And it also has metaphorical meaning. You can’t have an event — or a country — in which every conceivable tribe will feel welcome. Something established is just that, a “something,” and a “something” always has a definition. And definitions limit; they exclude what doesn’t meet the definition. You can have tradition and exclude iconoclasts, or you can make today’s iconoclasm tomorrow’s norms and exclude traditionalists. But you can’t have your gluten-free cake and eat it, too.

As for health, every civilization has a nut allergy. The Rauzi realm’s dietary and voting decisions make plain that nuts abound in our nation today — and all of America is descending into anaphylactic shock.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (799 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to BBQ Bushwa

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    How do you know Robin Rauzi is female? Robin can be a male as well as female name (perhaps the son of a Batman fan). But my reaction overall is similar to yours. If people don’t want to eat what’s being served, they can bring their own or not attend. (There are things I won’t eat, but generally I can find plenty enough of something.) Not having beef isn’t much of a problem; barbecue can work perfectly well with pork and chicken (and hot dogs can be made of pork). There are even turkey burgers.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    You can’t have an event — or a country — in which every conceivable tribe will feel welcome. Something established is just that, a “something,” and a “something” always has a definition. And definitions limit; they exclude what doesn’t meet the definition. You can have tradition and exclude iconoclasts, or you can make today’s iconoclasm tomorrow’s norms and exclude traditionalists. But you can’t have your gluten-free cake and eat it, too.

    To function reasonably well, a country must have a dominant culture. They Left knows this and this is one reason they have promoted so many sub-cultures. They have balkanized America.

    What they have, in effect, done, is take the moral in Aesop’s fable and stand it on its head. They don’t want a strong bundle of twigs tied together as that is hard to break. Better to have individual twigs which snap easily.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I suspect it was no accident when the Goracle mistranslated e pluribus unum as “out of one, many”. That’s what his side seeks, partly to weaken America but even more to set themselves as the arbiters of group demands.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      There once was a barbecue bash
      With all kinds of food in the stash
      Until someone went queasy
      About noodles and cheesie
      Feasts now are a reason to fast

      I can stop any time I want to. Really.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, hey, if you take the “e” out of “feast” you get “fast”. I’m sure some liberals would take that argument seriously. But I will add that I’ve been at many events serving barbecue (at Elizabeth’s family reunion last Saturday, they had chicken and pulled pork with barbecue sauce available, and buns for the pork).

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I’m a bit old-fashioned when it comes to BBQs. Just serve the staples and be done with it: chips, dip, corn on the cob, potato salad, hotdogs, hamburgers, relish, two-all-beef-patties-special-sauce-lettuce-cheese, pie, ice cream, and S’mores. And if someone has any food allergies then here’s an idea…

          BRING YOUR OWN DAMN FOOD.

          But people have now fallen all over themselves to be “sensitive” about this. And people have found ever-new ways to find food allergies and such. We’re such precious little snowflakes now. It’s sickening. And this is coming from someone who does have an allergy or two. But, good god, only Pajama Boys can’t buck it up and either eat what is in front of them, bring their own, or go without. Look at the prissy little monsters our society is making by trying to be so “sensitive.” Uh, oh. I feel one coming on…

          There was a young man from Prissy
          Whose food limitations were sissy
          No gluten or meat
          Almost nothing to eat
          He soon faded away in a jiffy

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            Just serve the staples and be done with it: chips, dip, corn on the cob, potato salad, hotdogs, hamburgers, relish, two-all-beef-patties-special-sauce-lettuce-cheese, pie, ice cream, and S’mores.

            What a pig out! You really don’t need the S’mores.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Kung, all that a good 4th of July picnic needs is chicken, corn on the cob, potato salad, and apple pie. Those are the four food groups. I just got carried away earlier.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Come, come. Every good SF fan knows chocolate is one of the basic food groups. Potato chips may be another. Not that I’d object to such a picnic menu.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                I think there are different modes or dimensions in regards to the four food groups. I had my scale dialed to “4th of July.” The Americana group is “Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet.” The Obama group is Vodka, Marx, Lenin, and Castro. It varies.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Well, some of those aren’t foods, though as a baseball fan who drives a Chevrolet Cavalier (actually, Elizabeth drives it a lot more than I do), I certainly appreciate the Americana one.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            At picnics and other such events, people serve themselves, which is no problem unless someone is allergic to everything. People usually share bringing the food (Elizabeth brought Kroger deli potato salad to the family reunion), so even that shouldn’t happen.

          • Rosalys says:

            Your little ditty reminds me of one of my daughter’s boyfriends. He was a vegan and his primary choice of food was carrots – especially those mini ones. He had an especially pasty complexion.

  3. David Ray says:

    My mom was no shrinking violet. If I pulled any finicky crap at the table, I inherited the back of her hand. (She did allow some exceptions to my palate.)
    Of course, my mom is the black sheep of the family. She now votes entirely Republican . . . and curses them infinitely as I do.

    Oh, and God have mercy if I did any crying or whining. As a gal who grew up (at first) in an Oklahoma house with no electricity, she had zero patience for bullshit.
    If it were not for her unyielding discipline, I’d’ve washed out in Marine boot camp a.s.a.p. (Now it appears the Marines are washing out with the other branches due to chicken-shit Gen. Casey & Wesley Clark types running things – or is it them obeying things.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      I grew up with my father,a retired Gunny, at 10 I could field strip and re-aasemble an M-1 and I never left the table hungry, a clean plate was standard, the only exception was illness. Really, how often is a teenager sick? At MCRDSD while others were grossing about the chow, I ate up and called it good. My dad was a much better Marine than cook and chow hall rations were gourmet dining.

      Our Corps still stands tall and proud, waiting to stand to post. I doubt I will ever be called back to service, but in 1962 my dad had been out for almost 10 years and was recalled to PI to train up for the invasion of Cuba. If called I will go.

      Semper Fi

      • Timothy Lane says:

        As an Army brat, I occasionally had army canned rations (K or C, I’m not sure which). This was in the 1960s, and they were generally good enough to my taste. Perhaps it helps that I have no sense of smell, so my tastes are very basic.

        • Steve Lancaster says:

          K and C rats were much improved by the addition of tabasco in the one ounce bottle. I still use it, if you watch in a place like Waffle House or IHOP the men who put tabasco on eggs are almost always military, or from the rural South.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I first encountered Tabasco on a family trip to Crete. On the first night we had a steak dinner in a fancy place, and they brought out a tray with all sorts of sauces, including Tabasco. We never used them at home, so I gave probably every single one a try.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        There once was a Marine called Steve
        Whose plate he would always leave clean
        Over grub to make a stinko
        Was for Commies and pinkos
        Semper Fi and on the wall be seen

        • M Farrell says:

          Food limericks– yet another reason to love this webpage– food and Marines, two of my favorite topics–

        • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

          Not bad, but it might be improved by changing the second line to “Whose plate clean he always would leave” although then line 5 must be changed as well to rhyme with “leave” – perhaps “Semper Fi, and we never fear [the] heaves”. And if you don’t mind splitting an infinitive, line 3 could be recast as “To over grub make a stinko”.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            There once was a fellow named Nik.
            Who re: limericks was awfully thick
            Instead of just writing
            His own to his liking
            To mine it was pick, pick, pick, pick

  4. Fred Burr says:

    “You can’t have an event — or a country — in which every conceivable tribe will feel welcome.” Sums it up perfectly.

  5. GHG says:

    When you get right down to the nub of it, Hillary is correct – it’s all white people’s fault. Everything, including turning communal BarBQs into warring food tribes. And as Hillary scolds “we white people have to change our ways”.

    Apologies to my non-white brothers and sisters who may read this because in no way am I using this sarcasm to “white wash” heinous and despicable acts done by white people through the ages any more than I would when those acts are done by non-white people.

    But, as a white person who has NEVER considered non-white people to be less than or different than me where it really matters – in the content of their character – I’m incensed that the presumptive nominee for the presidency would insinuate that I’m part of the problem based on the color of my skin. That’s what we’ve devolved to since MLKjr gave his stirring speach – it’s now all about the color of one’s skin, not the content of one’s character.

    After her pronouncement yesterday, anyone who would vote for her would have to rebuke what MLKjr stood for and accept race based “justice” as the new “law” of the land.

  6. Glenn Fairman says:

    A society without a God can and will transform an idea, an experience, a bodily function, an animal, or itself into an idol, and a grim one at that.

  7. Glenn Fairman says:

    “I was eating a steak at a local restaurant last night, when a random woman said: “Y’know, you’d be much better off being a vegetarian.” “Are you crazy?” I said, “The cow was a vegetarian and look what happened to it!”
    ― Quentin R. Bufogle

    “Even as a junkie I stayed true [to vegetarianism] – ‘I shall have heroin, but I shan’t have a hamburger.’ What a sexy little paradox.”
    ― Russell Brand, My Booky Wook

    “The thought of two thousand people crunching celery at the same time horrified me.”
    ― George Bernard Shaw

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Great quotes. I think vegetarianism has a lot to do with moral preening. And it’s the result of much indoctrination that has undermined human exceptionalism as young skulls-full-of-meaty-mush are told that they are just another animal. And by that calculus, of course, animals have the same status as humans…and, conversely and perversely, humans have the same rights as animals.

      I have no respect for vegetarians. But I do respect those who say we should treat animals humanely. Now, someone here will of course regale me with a story of the exception, of the uncle or aunt who was a vegetarian for health reasons. And I just don’t care. The subject of vegetarianism has fully entered the realm of leftist kooksville. I think most people who are vegetarians are moral preeners. I have no use for them. But I’m a big fan of vegetables myself.

      Uh oh. I feel one coming on . . .

      There once was a libtard from Vegan
      Much more of a Sanders than Reagan
      With veggies she was stuffed
      And had a cucumber blush
      She’d dream at night of crisp bacon

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I think vegetarianism entered our culture through two main avenues.

        1. The health food fanatics, who are looking to live forever. (Lots of there types have German roots.)

        2. The faux-Buddhists, to whom Christianity is anathema, looking for an easy way to preen and cover it with a certain amount of spirituality. They may not even realize their preenings are of Buddhist origin. Of course, they have no real idea about Buddhism.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Great analysis, Mr. Kung. I quite agree. I’ve studied (but not really practiced) Buddhism. What Buddhism is, in practice (in Western practice), is emotional masturbation. The point is to blot out life’s difficulties and replace them with ever-present warm-fuzzies born mostly of self-congratulations. This is surely why I’m drawn more to Christianity where the point is, or is supposed to be, to carry your own cross and give meaning to your suffering rather than trying to blot it out at all costs.

          Vegetarianism is yet another Progressive thing wherein there is something at least half decent inside of it — an element of truth, if you will. I have no problem with people eating veggies because they wish to spare animals. I have no problem at all with that. I don’t even have any problem with the self-delusion and sanctimony, about them “saving the planet” and all that.

          What I have problem with is The Big Lie. If they care so damn much for every living creature that wiggles on the earth, how could such types be overwhelmingly for abortion?

          I don’t mind a conceit, per se. I mind The Big Lies.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I’ve studied (but not really practiced) Buddhism. What Buddhism is, in practice (in Western practice), is emotional masturbation. The point is to blot out life’s difficulties and replace them with ever-present warm-fuzzies born mostly of self-congratulations. This is surely why I’m drawn more to Christianity where the point is, or is supposed to be, to carry your own cross and give meaning to your suffering rather than trying to blot it out at all costs.

            I believe one of the most consequential points of Christianity is its immediacy. Unlike in religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism, in Christianity you get no “do-overs”, one cannot take a Mulligan on the golf course of life. In Christian belief, a human being comes around this way only once. Hard choices must be made which will determine one’s fate into eternity. One doesn’t come back as a cockroach for being evil or a saint for being good.

            Certainly, this is one of the reasons for the rise of Europe. There are no second chances in the game of life.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              And Buddhism is basically atheism, no matter how they try to sugarcoat it. And to be honest — I’m not try to give it short shrift — it’s difficult to pin down exactly what Buddhism is or what they believe. It’s like a religion or philosophy built for Postmodernists. It’s gobs and bogs of gobbledygook.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Lest you think I’m being too judgmental about Buddhism, Mr. Kung, I just want to make a couple points:

              Buddhism is empty calories. They put the “gook” in gobbledygook. It’s a cobbled-together bunch of indecipherable and incoherent beliefs or philosophies that uses its inherent opaqueness as a defense against discovery of being little more than a collection of fortune cookie wisdom. (And today it has done much as the fraudulent Pope Francis has done and substituted a bunch of Left wing nostrums for whatever authentic beliefs you could say they ever had.)

              That said, there is a spiritual component quite consistent with Christianity. I know that much of Christianity as bandied about tends to be fairly shallow and dull. But in Buddhism you do have a general idea of the negation of the ego out of which arises something else. In the case of Buddhist metaphysics, what arises is inherently fuzzy for they don’t really have a metaphysics of meaning. It’s a metaphysics of un-meaning and thus if you un-mean the ego you reach a blissful state of whatever.

              Christians can borrow from Buddhism as long as they know it’s like borrowing a bit of Vodka from a Russian. A Russian while drink himself to death on it and you want only a little bit.

              The idea of centering around something other than the human ego (attaching to often inflated, conceited, and just plain vulgar ideas of self) so that one can have a mystical experience or orientation that gives one a union, however tentative, with God is completely orthodox. Sometimes Christian teaching can become so boringly bland that it helps to reach outside of one’s religion for ideas. And the extinction (or at least reduction) of the ego is something one can appreciate from Buddhism. It’s just that in Buddhism, there is no goal other than annihilation.

              And as far as a central tenet of Buddhism as Timothy mentioned, good luck figuring that out. I’ve read a number of prime sources on the religion/philosophy and you’ll be hard-pressed to come out of it with any clear idea of what it all means other than “baffle them with bullshit.” You could write what Christianity is about in one or two paragraphs. You can’t do that with Buddhism because obscurantism is central to it.

              • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

                I’ll give Buddhism this much credit: even though I’ve always thought it was mostly B.S. (as practiced in the West), at least it doesn’t call upon its followers to convert or kill those who don’t believe in it, as a certain “Religion of Peace” does. Interesting question to be sprung on the Barry Obamas of this world: if every Muslim could be converted to Buddhism overnight, wouldn’t the world be a better place tomorrow?

              • Timothy Lane says:

                A good question, and one I suspect Slick Barry would never bring himself to answer other than with some vague statement about all religions being equally valid.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As a friend says, “Vegetables aren’t food. Vegetables are what food eats.”

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    …if every Muslim could be converted to Buddhism overnight, wouldn’t the world be a better place tomorrow?

    Nik, I think there’s an interesting convergence of kumbaya Christianity and Buddhism. Those who believe in little other than feel-goodism cannot defend themselves.

    Buddhism has the weakness of moral relativism at its core. Although its technically against evil, practically it will do nothing. And as Christianity becomes more Buddhism-like, it becomes powerless in the face of evil. Read some of the writings of the current Dalai Lama and you’ll encounter a “nice” leftwing fecklessness that is also extremely naive.

    I’ll leave out the spates of violence that Buddhists have been involved in, such as in Sri Lanka. I think your point is a good one that the world would be a better place if Muslims converted to Buddhism. Interestingly, I find Muslims and Buddhists to be two sides of the same coin. One is overly judgmental and totalitarian and thus dangerous and destructive. The other is overly passive and amorphous and thus facilitates evil if only by not opposing it.

    It’s true that if you take any evil group of people, it would always be better if you just removed their brains. But we have a brain. We have a moral conscience. We have to learn how to use them wisely. Both Muslims and Buddhists do not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *