Justin Beiber and the TEA Party

Your pie maker recently asked an intern from the Institute for Women's Policy Research about how the male ideal changed from "tall, dark and handsome" to "small, pale and pretty."  He pointed out how he had once mistook a picture of the pop star for a five year old, and could not see how someone who might not need to shave yet could attract such attention.  This was intended to be rhetorical, almost an ironic lament, as a hearty diet in his youth and regular outdoor exercise put your pie maker closer to the first category. 

Her answer, however, was both immediate and insightful.  Women do not need the protection of a man anymore, at least women living in the parts of town with good police protection.  There is no need for women to put up with the risks associated with signs of high testosterone levels, as a man able physically defend her is equally able, and somewhat likely, to harm her.  Since laborers are no longer primary breadwinners, at least in families that can afford concert tickets, evidence of physical labor will be a sign of "otherness" at best, lower caste at worst.  Only very rarely would a man working with his hands be pointed out by their mothers or older sisters as objects of desire.  In other words, since women are in many ways better equipped to thrive in the modern economy, it's not surprising that the new heartthrobs are more effeminate.

Herein lies a fascinating view of the psychology of the generation gap that largely defines the TEA Party.  A man who reaches adulthood without the scars, sun-driven wrinkles and callouses that come from learning at the basics of maintaining his own land will rely on contracts with others to ensure the work gets done.  Those contracts require courts, police and a whole body of laws to ensure that they are enforced.  To keep inequities in contracts from turning into civil unrest or threats to public health, they must be monitored by regulators.  The wealth required to ensure that enough of those contracts get paid that an acceptable amount of work gets done requires a financial system that cannot lose money, and so must be carefully regulated and backed by public funds. A nation whose majority work in offices needs to import its goods, requiring globe-spanning security with the equipment and intelligence systems, foreign and domestic, to ensure that the empowering technologies that make life in the US comfortable do not get turned against us.  Someone has to pay for this, and aren't we Taxed Enough Already?


There's no doubt that the Baby Boomers who make up the majority of the TEA Party have benefited from this system, even helped build major parts of it.  But they have ushered in a world whose reward structure is very different from the one in which the Greatest Generation raised raised them.  "Self reliance" is hard, and much of what we used to call "progress" trades it for interdependence.  Successful politicians have managed to keep many of the mechanisms that provide this prosperity hidden via subsidies, tax incentives and mandates on employers and manufacturers, allowing them to run essentially as their own opposition.  When times are good, the costs for this can be easily absorbed in by steadily increasing tax revenues and corporate earnings.  Indeed, regulations create barriers to entry that heavily favor incumbents and enable genuine economic profits.

However, times are not good.  We need to choose whether government influence should become more visible, and our lack of independence made clear, or accept less comfortable lives with fewer services.  Classic notions of masculinity clearly argue for the latter, but it's clear those views are losing cachet.  There is a lot of unfocused anger in the national discussion today, and your pie maker thinks this trend is at the heart of it.  He's not entirely sure which side of it he falls upon, however.  Interconnectedness, another word for specialization, is the core of civilization, but too much leads to fragility, a system rife with single points of failure as each individual is needed to make vital services function.  There is no easy answer, but it helps to ask the right question.

A progressive case for Mitt

Author's note: This is part of a series of semi-satirical pieces your pie maker is writing as a means of studying the writing and argumentative styles of various groups. I'll start with this, now Overcome By Events (OBE), "progressive" case for Mitt Romney. I'm going to try and adopt the language, style and most of the assumptions made by Huffington Post and Slate's left-leaning columnists. Obviously, the argument itself contains flaws, but they should be similar to those common in the writings I'm attempting to imitate.  Comments are appreciated on the style, language and assumptions.  The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of your pie maker, the Pie Cabinet or anyone associated with the production or consumption of pies.

A Progressive Case for Mitt

Take away the wars, tax cuts and bellicose language of the 43rd President of the United States, and what you have is perhaps the most progressive legislative legacy in our history. Consider:

No Child Left Behind: The largest and most forceful effort to compel school districts to educate all of their children.
Medicare Part D: The largest expansion of government health care coverage since LBJ. 
Sarbanes-Oaxley: The most comprehensive and, this is key, quickly implemented overhaul of financial regulation since the Great Depression.
An energy plan with support for lower-carbon fuels: Despite incredibly cheap oil at the time, this laid the regulatory framework to allow domestic gas drilling to explode as well as support for renewable energy.
The largest expansion of Federal spending since Reagan: Under the guise of increasing "security", the Federal workforce expanded rapidly, providing good jobs, benefits and stability to many disadvantaged parts of the country.

There are two reasons for this.  Number one, at least since WWII Americans have expected their Presidents to play against type.  Eisenhower warned us of the Military-Industrial-Complex.  War-hero Kennedy founded the Peace Corps.  Johnson, the Old Southern Gentleman, pushed through the Civil Rights Act.  Nixon, for all his faults, opened relations with China and signed the National Environmental Protection Act.  Reagan raised taxes and Bill Clinton signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

The second reason is that progress is inevitable because it is good for business.  The president of Ford has called for a public healthcare system.  Employees whose identities are affirmed, relationships are legal and do not fear discrimination are more productive.  When a society's reactionaries are placated by seeing someone who looks and sounds like them at the head of the state, they are less likely to stand in its way.

Mitt Romney knows better than to say any of this now, but his record in Massachusetts clearly shows his understanding of the importance of governing progressively, even if you have to run conservatively.  He's smart enough to know that it isn't smaller government, but less visible government that people want.  It is unfortunate that we have to choose between progressive government and progressives in government, but the lessons of history are clear.  It may be distasteful, but history suggests that a vote for Mitt is a vote for progress.

Sustainable Substitution #2: The Outdoor Kitchen

During the summer, your pie maker doesn't like to run the oven and the air conditioning at the same time. So, like last time, we turn to a solution that could win the Design for the First World competition: The Fuzzy Wups Outdoor Kitchen.

The key element is the Weber kettle-style grill, which allows both high direct heat and lower, indirect heat from the same heat source. The key is to stage the meal properly so that you're using the coals at each step properly. Consider, for example, your pie maker's Independence Day celebration, pictured below.

Clearly, this approach requires no small amount of effort. The tray in the top picture is required to carry the dough, sauce, cheese, toppings, wings and tools for the "cooking" phase. For the important part, the baking phase, your pie maker recommends one more accessory to make slaving away a bit easier, as shown below.

On discussion and debate

Your pie maker is a huge fan of Information Dissemination precisely because its lead author writes columns like this about The Great Green Fleet. There is no doubt what his opinion is, but it is always presented in a way that acknowledges the humanity and likely good will of those with whom he disagrees. This is the heart of how to disagree peacefully and present opinions that one holds based on consideration of observations, rather than as a fundamental part of one's identity.

Consider, for contrast, the Conservative and Occupy movements. In the recent GOP primaries, affirmation of Conservative credentials played as large a role in the discussion as any policy provision, with the assumption that present Conservative orthodoxy can and ought to be applied to all past positions. Even staffers at the Supreme Court feel that they ought to attack those who break ranks, threatening the Court's legitimacy to affirm their identity. The demands of Occupiers for jobs and social justice are perhaps noble, but the movement, much like the Conservatives they oppose, proclaim more of an identity (we are the 99%) than a coherent message.*

This leads to a poisonous environment for debate because it suggests that all compromise is a failure to uphold one's values, and thus a surrender of one's identity. How do we produce more Gahlrans, more people who are confident enough of their own intelligence and good will to acknowledge it in others? Your pie maker believes the recipe calls for equal parts of humility and affirmation from sources such as this column. Humility because we are all limited, unable to fully understand our own interests much of the time, much less something as complicated as the modern economy. Affirmation because it encourages engagement, creates comfort and allows us to face the often painful cognitive dissonance that's necessary to correct a mistake.

*"Lower taxes" is a consistent theme for Conservatives, and "more taxes for the rich" for Occupiers, but the consensus tends to end around there.