I’m starting a new blog-Gemütlich Blog

It’s Gemütlich Blog[*1] . It’s gemütlich because . . . well . . . go here[*2] and read about gemütlichkeit.

Medary isn’t very gemütlich. I’ve (rather on purpose) made it pretty difficult to comment on my articles here. That’s not gemütlich at all. Plus things here at Medary tend towards the serious, the political, and honestly goes off a bit too often for my comfort on some serious anger about politics and the really, really stupid things done by the really, really stupid people who think they know how to run the world.

See? Serious.

I don’t wanna be serious, but Medary is a serious place. It can’t help it, I think.

And so, we have Gemütlich Blog[*1] .

Medary will still be here, a repository for my serious side, my rants about things worth ranting about, and all the fun stuff that makes blogging so bloggy for blog bloggers. But Gemütlich Blog[*1] is intended to be more fun, warmer, nicer, more welcoming, and all that stuff.

Where David Mamet justifies my own judgment

Now I find that I shared that artistic judgment with playwright David Mamet[*1] . The setting is Mamet is teaching a class–I imagine on play writing (the quote is via the Wall Street Journal):

“Are gay people people too?” I (Mamet) asked the student, and he said that of course they were. “Are they aware of that fact?” I asked him. And he responded similarly. “Then why,” I asked, “as they are aware of the fact, would they find its repetition on stage entertaining?”

“Ah, but,” he said, “the straight people should see it.”

“Ah, but,” I said, “the straight people don’t care. They may reward themselves for the ability to be bored by a play with a Good Message, but they, just like the gay people, come to the theater to be entertained. Your enlightenment is insufficient to capture the audience’s attention for two hours.”

I really don’t have any particular problem with gay people, or homosexuality myself (by which fact you can infer that I’m not actually a conservative–I’m a classical liberal, really: in today’s parlance, a libertarian.) I would really prefer however not to be beaten about the head and shoulders with gayness (or any other Message) for two hours straight, thank you very much. That’s my fundamental problem with Democrats, “progressives,” and others of the collectivist ilk. They insist that everyone else care about Their Pet Issue with the same burning fervor that they do. But the real world ain’t built that way. “The straight people don’t care.”

On self detection of bias, and the members of Members

In the matter of Representative Weiner . . . replace his name with “Representative Boehner.” If your reaction to the story changes, then you are quite probably reacting to the story in a biased and partisan manner. If it doesn’t, chances are that you’re being fair and objective.

For the record, I have thought for a long time that Weiner is a dick. And not the kind restrained by underwear. Precisely because he’s a shameless partisan—dick.

If Boehner had done what Weiner has done, I’d be calling for his resignation as an embarrassment to his Party.

If Democrats don’t loudly call for Weiner’s resignation, then they are saying that they approve of that behavior. Which crosses the line from partisan to icky, in my book.

When communists tell you to rein in government spending . . .

. . . you should probably seriously consider reining in government spending.

James Pethokoukis, in Reuters[*1] :

So my advice to the spending hawks on Capitol Hill — of both parties — is to listen to China, stand firm and get something big in return for raising the debt limit. At minimum this would be getting at least $1 in spending cuts for every $1 increase in the debt ceiling, along with the spending caps found in the McCaskill-Corker bill. Even former Clinton economist Alice Rivlin thinks raising the debt ceiling should be linked to a long-term budget plan.

Personally, I’d hold out for $2 in real budget cuts for every $1 in debt ceiling increase, but I’m kind of a budget “hawk” anyway. Actually, my opening position would be about $4 in real budget cuts PLUS $1 reduction in the debt ceiling. That would, in my opinion, be most fiscally responsible–cut spending AND use most of the spending cuts to reduce the debt.

When Communists tell you your government is spending too much, then your government is spending too much. Period.