Saturday, August 15, 2015

yoo can doo eeeeeet, yoo can doo eeeeeet OHL-NYTE-LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG

I don't know why I didn't see this before -- but probably it's because The New Republic is something I laugh at. The general premise is good, though it's something I have long believed to be obvious, while constantly scratching my head and furrowing my brow when I discover it's obvious pretty much only to me. And, now, I can assume this Deresciewicz character maybe even believes that he sees it too -- and sees it honestly, rather than as something he can sell as a marketable contrarian stance.

The land of the Ancient Papyrus is gill-stuffed with summa-summa-summa-cum-laude CVs/resumes indicating All-American status in a sport and managing a multi-million dollar business operation of some nebulous type since age 12. If you judged them by these stupid pieces of e-paper called CV or resume, you'd think them to a person qualified to be Emperor of the Galaxy.  If not God.

Meanwhile these people showed, also to a person, a general disinclination to demonstrate intellectual creativity. If the solution you need happens to be residing within their prodigious warehouse of memorized info-bits and concepts, they will snap to a solution of sorts. The solution might be one you couldn't think of yourself because, unfortunately, you were born with only average intellectual talents. You can't memorize as many things as the Future Emperor of the Galaxy, and you never put as much work into learning.

It's common in my experience to find one of these FEG types can't do much mendelian breeding of the various tidbits and concepts they hold in their prodigious warehouse of eidetically impressive brain tissue. So if your answer requires much open-concept thinking and cross-wiring of traditionally boxed-and-separated "fields" (as academia breaks them down), you generally won't get that answer from FEG.

Though, ironically, the audience would believe that FEG can't possibly be so deficient.

Look at that CV!

The Type A+++ that is the FEG, s/he is just the adult world's version of what, starting in about 5th grade, I saw childhood peers demonstrating as a collection of humanoids gathered for a social purpose. Tribalism and insecurity, and the general desire to be led, rather than thinking you might be able to lead yourself.  People want a well-credentialed leader, and in 5th grade lingo, someone who's "popular" because of symbols and tokens and gestures presented to their fawning subjects.  Prom Queen, HS QB, President of Student Council, First Chair Violin in school orchestra.

Pretending to be able to lead yourself often results in a pose at contrarianism. The pose ruse is revealed by having a soft contrarianism, nerf criticism might be a good name for it. Criticism is monetized differently now in the era of the monetized concept. The concept doesn't have to be reduced to implementation in 2015, it's marketable and monetizable if it can generate clicks or divert attention.

If that Deresciewicz guy can bring a little more heat with a bit more precision, I might believe he believes what he says.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

we're libertarians, but we don't care about liberty

Over at (t), the mental midgets who write for that pile o' turds continue to assure the pile's readers that things are peachy-keen.

Federal Agencies Fight for Warrantless Access to Emails

I don't know how/why a person named Veronique deRugy is assigned the task of writing reveal 85% of the truth but conceal the disturbing 15% that we shouldn't tell anyone, and I don't know why her pen name is some kind of The Archies reference,** but I do know Ms de-Reggie'd-long-before-Betty-did can't bring herself to speak honestly on the topic.


Actually, I do know why.

It's because (t) has made heroes of Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden, and (t) can't be bothered to recall exactly what it was that Mark Klein revealed in 2006.

Presumably that's because homo-/metro- sexuality is one of the bullet/focal points of the (t) perspective, and Mark Klein's 06 revelations didn't involve a gay lawyer or a metro B-movie actor. What they did involve was the disclosure that telecom companies were openly eavesdropping on all signals they handled -- without a warrant, and without notifying any warrant-issuing entity that they deserved a pass on warrant-before-eavesdropping due to some legitimate exigency or at least a cobbled-together salad of words pretending to argue in favor of such a "national security" emergency attending the eavesdropping activity.


This, good cretinous reader of this tumbleweed-infested Home of Homophobic Misogynistic Reactionary Mirth, is precisely why Greenwald was made into a hero and his Tom Cruise-wannabe disinfo vector Snowden was primped and pimped as a "whistleblower".

"What's that, Ochstradt? What's the reason?"

Glad you asked. It's because the lie offered by Greenwald/Snowden would be unmade and rendered impotent if the originator of the truth (Klein's 06 saga) had been upheld as the True Revelator and the disclosures therein given broader exposure.  Because you know, stupid knuckledragging Progressive pals-o-mine, that there was near-to-nil coverage in 06 or any time thereafter of Mark Klein's revelations. 

You know that YOU didn't read or hear about it, not back then and not since then either, and you definitely know that you don't believe me when I talk about this stuff, because Karl Franz Ochstradt is not a BRAND NAME EXPERT on any subject while Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden are, in your fantasy-masquerading-as-reality, the real EXPERTS on cyberspookery.  They ARE your experts because you heard about them time and time again from sources you trust, and you trust those sources because they have spent lots of time writing and/or speaking in tongues familiar to your 4-Square Pentecostal belief in Progress. 

All an infotainer has to do, in order to gull your incredibly cretinous self, is speak in Progressive tongues.  Use Progressive buzzwords.  Use Progressive button-pushing triggering phrases.  And demonize the right monsters.

Do that, and watch the Progressives fall in line as zombie walkers in a somnambulent queue.


"But Ochstradt, you started out talking about the people at, and here you've been pot-shotting at Progressives.  Did you get confused?  Lose focus?  Or simply have a synaptic misfire typical of someone who has the same mental illnesses you have?"

Ah.  Yes.  There it is.  The allegation battery, the accusation barrage, done by passive-aggression, emulating Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.

Let me tell you, good Progressive, that there isn't a wooden nickel's difference between Progressives and "libertarians" (followers of and participants at where skull-crushing naivete and soul-stealing groupthink are concerned.  Both tribes think themselves smart-as-fuck, both groups "prove" this by mocking the other with derisive words and scornful tones, and yet both gangs work from a fantasy playbook that doesn't really have much to say for itself in the way of reality-based foundations.

Both groups think Greenwald is a constitutional law expert and cybersecurity genius, and both groups think Snowden is a real whistleblower who left BA&H employ with a whole mess o' damaging data that eventually -- maybe some time in the latter part of the 21st Century, if we're lucky -- will be revealed.

Neither group, as a group, puts any value in the opposite position.  Neither would believe that Greenwald actually knows little-to-nothing about Constitutional Law, and neither can imagine that Greenwald lies when he says he knows cybersecurity, and neither would ever entertain the concept of Snowden being an actor playing a role on the Bread&Circus circuit in service of distractive disinformation ends.

As far as both gangs are concerned, the Snowden/Greenwald Team is bringing cold hard truths home to liberty-concerned Americans, no matter whether Progressive or Libertarian, whether Republican or Democrat, whether technophilic futurist or luddite reactionary.


Perhaps Veronica will dump Reggie and Archie alike and end up married to Jughead. 

Yes, and maybe Progressives and "libertarians" will dump the bullshit Greenwald/Snowden story in favor of what Mark Klein tried to inform people about in 2006. 

If that happens, then Ms deRugy's linked essay will be nullified as missing the main point while trying to argue about a peripheral minor pseudo-point.

--Karl Franz Ochstradt, sworn enemy of tribalist reality-deniers and ignorant smugitarians.


**  Is that Modern Hipster hilarity?  An "ironic" reference to a late 1960s - early 1970s cartoon and/or novelty band?

subjective satire -- or at least, satire-wannabe

A group of multicultural, international aspirants to satire gathered recently with a focus on trying to satirize Donald Trump's placement in the 2016 POTUS race.  We had a stealth reporter there to capture the workings of this august congress and its work products.

Faithful Democrat:  OMIGOD, he's a REPTHUGLICAN!  Wants you to STARVE!  Then DIE!  He will bring ANARCHY!  (carted out of room by EMTs, who suspect cerebrovascular event despite patient's age of 24 yrs old)

GOP Republican:  Not a serious contender, no foreign policy experience.  Just like Hillary.  (grins a Mona Lisa smile, thumps briefcase in a ba-dum-BUMP manner)

Progressive Democrat:  His hair is SCANDALOUS!  Plus he started on third base and believed he HIT A TRIPLE!  MISOGYNIST too!  Doesn't believe in CAMPUS RAPE EPIDEMIC!  Stupider than SARAH PALIN!  Has BINDERS full of women like MITT ROMNEY!  Plus a total HOMOPHOBE!  (struts about with triumphant smug bearing somewhat like that of Pajama Boy)

Japanese PoliSci Student @ George Washington University:  (submission is cartoon of Herbie but with doe eyes, saying You're Feye-ed!)

Socialist Workers Party representative:  Anyone that rich is a thief, unless he's Noam Chomsky.  Hah hah.  Get it?  Get it?  Get it now?  How about now?  Still don't get it?  You must be a reactionary fascist!  Hah hah hah hah!  (waves copy of Manufacturing Consent, occasionally opening to fly leaf with alleged Chomsky autograph)

Green Party campaign manager for Jill Stein MD:  All those riches and he doesn't even like tofu, and his limousine isn't an alt-fuel vehicle!  Never eaten quinoa!  Doesn't even approve of wind power!  Jealous of Elon Musk!  (constantly air-thrusting  Blackphone 2 prototype opened to webpage for Tesla, demanding that cameraman get it on video)

Canadian student majoring in Post-Homophobic Economics @ University of British Columbia:  Reminds me of Rob Ford without the waistline (snickers like a 9 year old girl who just heard her friend say "Darren has cooties!")

Faux-Libertarian regular commenter at  Wood chipper for Trump!  Wants to destroy free markets by cornering them and keeping everything for himself!  (sits back and waits for congratulatory-seeming dull-witted parrot comments by other forum regulars)

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

new Chamber of Commerce tourism video for Missoula

The Missoula Chamber of Commerce, in conjunction with the Good Food Store, produced this video to promote the wonderful lifestyle available to those who live in Missoula.  Move now and experience this gratifying assurance of your noble Progressive culture!

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

emscot p. EK


Maybe if you don't like using words and letters like Plastalina, you won't understand what was just written.


I could try to tell you that I'm talking about mascots, and record producer Phil Ek, and the way urinary catheters pull your urine out of your bladder so you don't have to get out of the hospital bed and try to hobble over to the toilet to empty your pee into its bowl, and how lye is a powerful substance historically used when doing industrial bathroom cleaning.

But that would be a lie.

It would be a lie in service of a blog entry.  Sort of like this:

On the bar TV above H's head a cop picked up a Ferguson protester and threw him to the ground like a wet stuffed animal, and the bar exploded in laughter, some fuck started chanting USA! USA! USA! and the rest of the bar joined in....


Some people need to make up lies like that one, so they can keep being angry at anything that doesn't mirror their own views/beliefs. They try to put the origin of their own pathetic stuck-at-age-15-with-all-the-nascent-independence-it-carries-and-certainly-the-cocksure-eternal-rectitude-of-self viewpoint somewhere outside themselves, preferably stamp it onto redneck parents or redneck christer grandparents who lived in a redneck christer dirt-eater town in redneck christer dirt-eater central/western Pee Eh, and just keep spewing hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate mixed with self-righteousness self-righteousness self-righteousness self-righteousness blended with solipsism solipsism solipsism solipsism and a smattering of perseveration perseveration perseveration perseveration.

But I'm a writer and I like to write fiction!

I'm sure you do.  The question is, why do you suck at it -- and not just suck, but suck really badly and powerfully, like a two dollar hoooer who can pull a golf ball through a garden hose?


I'll settle down when every man, woman and child is a progressive like me.

Yeah.  Keep telling yourself that.  Everyone a pretentious, hyper-judgmental, yet ironically (and not hipster irony either!) robotic regurgitator of the Avowed and Acknowledged (through groupthink) Experts' views on what is permissible and lovable in music, books, movies and generally speaking, life. 

I knew people like the Ding-Dong in HS and college.  They were eager to tell me how much they knew about music, books, movies -- and they did so by repeating the viewpoints of the hipster critics of the era.  Movie ABC was whatever Hipster Critic said about it.  Album JKL was exactly as Hipster Critic said, and the band who made it -- DEF & the GHs -- were re-imagining music for all the most refined sets of ears.  Novelist OPQ certainly was the only one worth reading, the only one who mattered

Because Hipster Critic said so.

And Refined Proto-Hipster Peer had memorized the say-so, so it was gospel.


If you want to know why your pretense at "art" sucks donkey danglers, it's right here:  you don't know how to originate, because your view is enwrapped by Parrotting Others and Emulating Experts.  You know you are sub-normal in creative power, but you want terribly to produce art, and produce art that matters.

But you know you never will.

So you rage, seethe, fume at the world wherever it resembles anything unlike your imagined Valhalla.

And you passive-aggressively blame these christer-cracker-redneck-reactionaries for the unsettled nature of your ego/identity, your mental dis-ease.

I find it funny, but not because you're a gifted purveyor of satire.  Oh no, it isn't that.

It's because you're not that, but you imagine you are that.

That's one ripe huckleberry, Chalupa.

Friday, August 7, 2015

the MICHAEL sees all, knows all, tells all

John MICHAEL Greer, Supreme Arch-Druid of the North American Land Mass and possibly of Pangaea, submits the following wisdom among his other coprolitic gifts for posterity:

Dave, the fascinating thing to me is that nobody in the banking industry has stopped to think about what happens when their parasitic behavior kills its host.

Do you ever wonder why this post was green-lit back in May? Here is a good example.

The MICHAEL wants you to think "nobody" in the "banking industry" ever would "stop to think about" how their "parasitic behavior" will inevitably (per the wise scryings of the MICHAEL, that is) kill "its host."

The MICHAEL doesn't know anything about the "banking industry" if he thinks nobody ever looks down the road.  Financial businesses are in the habit of looking down the road and putting into action a present course which will, once traveled down that same road, yield profits.  That's what they do.  It's what they've always done.  That's what banking, insurance, lending, levering, multiplying, liquifying and otherwise monetarily or numerically manipulating present $$ is all about.

Of course, when your idea of "progress" is steam-punk-blessed retro-agrarianism (what the MICHAEL pines for, if his published prolixity is any indication), you probably don't have time for figuring out how or why something you'd off-handedly lump whole as the "banking industry" would ever look at "what happens" when a present path is taken to a future point.

I guess the MICHAEL thinks the assessment of interest on loaned money is all about living in the past?  Or in the present?

And the reason loans are repaid over time with accumulated interest, that's a happy accident of a failure to plan for the future?

Naturally, the MICHAEL thinks only the "banking industry" is "parasitic," and anyone who wants the rest of humanity to go steam-punk-approved-retro-agrarian is not a "parasite" who depends on others seeing things his way, eh?

How is the "banking industry" going to "kill its host" through following some present path, that's what I'd like the MICHAEL to explain.  Of course, he won't explain that.  He can't.  And mostly because he doesn't know how, because he doesn't understand anything other than looking backward to the 1700s for most everything aside from his internetting, which requires 20th if not 21st Century enabling.

Can you imagine what kind of "following" the MICHAEL would have if he'd been left with a Gutenberg machine and forced to arrange and publish his own pamphlets to hand out to random passers-by?

"Good kind sir, would you take a reasoned gander at my weekly missive, into which I've put moments if not actual minutes of forethought?"

"Get that trash out of my face, you smelly bum.  I already have toilet paper enough adjacent to my commode."

Perhaps that's not how it would have gone.  Maybe it would go like this:

"Dear sweet madam, kindly peruse my arduously researched and painstakingly published prognostications regarding the future of our noble society.  I offer this to you freely, without expectation."

"Well aren't you full of yourself?  Why don't you do something productive, like grow sugar beets or corn for the community?"

"All excellent ideas, madam, if it were not for my lack of a green thumb and my inability to live in the present rather than dwelling on the past."

"Sir, I would much rather enter Madam Zorah's Palm Reading Emporium and give her my hard-earned coins for a useless foretelling of the future.  Please find someone else to harangue with your feeblemindedness.  Now if you wouldn't mind, I've got to go butcher a chicken for supper."


Despite a remarkable naivete and paper-thin depth of understanding of the world's and America's social workings, our good soothsayer the MICHAEL offers this point of sagacity elsewhere in the same discussion:

Max, I expect a domestic insurgency in the US, a la Iraq or Syria, which will cripple the US economy and make it impossible for the national goverment to exert power anywhere outside its borders. We're very close to that right now, especially in the deep South and mountain West.

Naturally from the vantage point of Cumberland MD, our benevolent dictator-in-waiting known as the MICHAEL is fully and well versed in the social happenings of "the deep South" and of the "mountain West." Naturally.

All reality as it unfolds on Earth is visible with tremendous acuity in Cumberland MD -- if you see all, know all, tell all as does the MICHAEL.

Once upon a time, the MICHAEL tried to lecture one of this blog's past authors on how life is where that author lives (NB: in the mountain West), despite the MICHAEL's not living there. Of course, this doesn't surprise me now, as his schtick is omniscience informing a largesse of coping strategies offered to the desperate. In the present, the MICHAEL tells us that he fears the "deep South" and the "mountain West" -- and as the MICHAEL has tried to explain to prior authors at this blog, it's because of "reactionaries" who cling to a religion other than Druidism.

All religions aside from Druidism are disturbing indicators of psychopathy, you see.  And Druidism?  It's the foremost sign of advanced intelligence.  That's why the MICHAEL writes poorly-drawn and hollowly-crafted science fiction, because Druidism suggests the best way to get people back to the earth (steampunk-infused-retro-agrarianism) is to expose them to lousy sci-fi read only by social cripples.


Someone once tried to persuade me that John MICHAEL Greer is a fabricated internet construct, created only to be a satire of socio-econo-political wrangling, and designed to grant a microscopic income stream resulting from passive-aggressive marketing of his tepid, dull-witted sci fi writings.

I suppose that's possible.  I think it far more likely that he's a wealthy man who doesn't have to work because he made a lot of money doing something like writing basic code for a software program that enjoyed a few years of commercial success in the early days of personal computing.  Only a social outcast and interpersonal quadriplegic could believe the things that the MICHAEL offers as "wisdom" at the arch-druid report.  And only someone with even less skill and even fewer connections to his fellow human could find that report to be satirically innovative, or comically endowed with any laughter provocation or chuckle instigation.

What do you think his annual income is, brought in through his report and attributable to his cretinous sci fi writings?  Six thousand?  Three thousand?

And we're supposed to believe that he lives successfully steampunk-retro on that pittance, without a period of gargantuan profit in his youth, and/or without a financial backer to support his distractive diatribes?

Perhaps there is some comedy on offer, but I doubt very highly that it's satirical or even parodic in character.

Mrs John MICHAEL Greer prepares the scrying ball for His Lordship's prognostication

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

floppy wrists, insecure egos, subnormal IQs

Now that mountain bikes have become MAINSTREAM, BRO! we have all sorts of idiot fads and gay/metro slavery to those fads' fashions. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy couldn't have done a better job of pushing useless faggotry onto insecure boys-playing-at-men-but-unsure-how-to-be-men.

I bring you to Ennis Emby.

Better Bailout Options for 1x Systems?

So which is the better option (if needed):
  • a smaller narrow wide chainring, 32 -> 30T, 30 -> 28T ( and/or going Oval?)
  • adding a pie plate extender on to your cassette, 36 -> 40T, 40 ->42T, 42 ->44 or 45T
I'm seeing every combination out there, just wondering what is working best for people?

Poofty removed his front derailleur, front shifter and little ring to show his enslavement to fashion.  But now he can't pedal his bike up a hill.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just reinstall the front der, shifter, granny ring?

Naaaah.  That would make poofty feel like a femme, and he wants to feel butch.

So what does femme poofty do to "feel butch"?  He does a Larry Craig.  He goes to the airport bathroom and politely waits for another poofty femme who needs to "feel butch" to get into the neighboring stall, then he arranges a quick closeted faggot fuck with the neighbor.

Then leaves the bathroom feeling just as butch as he imagines himself.

It's a lot like that.

What kinds of responses did poofty get to his appeal for the brethren's wisdom?

Here's a killer.

Whether you go 30t or 32t and 40t or 42t if you live anywhere with nasty climbs I like to run a granny ring inside (must space over if running a 30t/104) for a manual bailout. 
You may rarely use it, but you'll never notice the extra weight of an alloy granny and four bolts, and it can be a life saver on that second (or 3rd) lap of the Flank (etc). The few seconds to change between rings isn't slowing you down any as you were going to take a quick break at the top anyways.

Remind me, you floppy-wristed poofter, why exactly you went to the He-Man 1x__ anyway.

To save weight? Well, do you really think that having a front derailleur and front der shifter is the reason your bike is so "heavy" and tough for you to pedal? You think climbing hills poorly is due to the weight of front der, shifter, cabling, and granny gear... and yet you suggest this?

I tell you, stupid chimpanzee reader of this knuckledragging reactionary misogynist bigot authored blog, that you're just a mincing wrist-flopping faggot if you ditch your 2x or 3x just to follow fashion and feel butch, only to learn that you're far too femme to make the 1x__ work. Just come out of the closet and admit it, you're not a bike rider, not a mountain bike rider, not a man, not even a teenage boy on the brink of manhood.

You're a tiny little girl in an adult XY chromosome body.

Maybe it's time to consider gender reassignment.

Friday, July 31, 2015

blind squirrel finds acorns, footy on my tweet in 15

The internetz somehow found their moment in the sun today, delivering two pieces of supra-normal goodness.

Though their writing generally stinks to high pig heaven, these guys definitely know their way around still and video cameras:

Vital RAW - Mont Sainte Anne DH Rock Smashing - More Mountain Bike Videos

Normally it's 1-2 mins of unFancy, this time it's a good 4 mins, my favorite being roughly 2:10 - 2:50.

Second acorn was a startling piece of get-out-of-the-way-and-let-the-story-tell-itself journalism -- from, of all places, pinkbike:

1 Question: What Does It Take To Become A Faster Rider?

Best thing Kazimer/Levy/Cunningham did with that piece is not inject The Pinkbike Pro Perspective.  Normally they are busy letting us know how pro they are at pinkbike.  But to whom did they turn when they wanted good explanations of bike riding skill, in a way that can't sell more gear?  It couldn't be Kazimer, Levy, Cunningham, Wragg.  Maybe Paul Aston could have done it though.  But anyway, the proper perspective there with the interviewees is to ask a simple question and get the hell out of the discussion from that point forward, because you're not at their level.  They're teaching you, not vice versa.  Keep doing that, Kazimer, and you may go places with your writing-in-journalist-mode.

Today, an oak tree gets planted. Two, even.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

brief chat with sad angry hypocrite who hates himself

Hey Jeff.  See you've been rampaging about hunters and praising Gay Liar Tarzie for his "animal rights" word-fluffery.  Also see you've been spewing flecks of spittle at people who don't fuck their housecats like you do.  What's up with that shit, Jeff?

Cats are a sign of Kindness.  You have to love cats or you embody Hate.

I see.  So that new co-worker who told you he hates cats, that sent you into a rage?  Is it like this every time someone holds a different opinion?  You rage, you fume, you seethe, and then you put on your sandpaper glove and wank your little thimbledick until it bleeds profusely -- on the internet?

The only valid opinion is the one I hold.  I alone see the truth of reality.

Verily, I say unto thee:  thine art an exemplar, and an extraordinary one at that, of the unhinged!  But let us try a different tack.  Sorry, that's sailing talk there, Jeff.  You're not a sailor; you're an armchair athlete who still harkens (and/or hearkens) back to his 10th grade soccer exploits every time athletic feats are in question, eh?  Anyway, a "tack" is a direction of a sailboat, it depends upon the wind at play at the moment of description, and the sailor's ability to harness that wind with the available mix of sails and the ropes which tension those sails.  So we'll try a different tack here.  HARD-A-LEE!  Okay, now we're moving to starboard.  Might you actually hate progressives with a vengeance, and you embody the progressive view on your BLCKDGRD blog just as a sort of weak-tea attempt at parody? 

My tea is never weak, bro.  I don't want to have to repeat that, bro.

It's incredible the way you seem to know the hipster lingo of two or three trends ago, and use it with such aplomb.  It's almost -- well, I don't want to get carried away with this theme, but -- it's almost reactionary.  "Bro."  Sure, we can work with that.  "Bro."  Did you actually call your friends "bro" back in 10th grade when you still thought you would be the Diego Maradona of your high school?

I bet you are a hunter.  Or were a hunter.  You are quite uncouth.

Deftly our Popovichian Poetastery Practitioner switches topics when the discussion moves into an area of ego brittleness.  If only he had the same feinting, dodging and juking skills displayed bipedally in 10th grade, he might actually have become that fantasized Maradona-of-his-own-HS.  So what's up with the hatred of hunters, Jeff?  You'd prefer that your comestibles of the animal carcass variety be brought to table through the vehicle of a factory farm? 

I don't eat meat.  Well, other than Tarzie's wang, which I only suck and don't literally eat.

Aaaaahhh.  So you have tits and withdrawn, retreated balls because you gobble the tofu in place of meat?  Do you also take estrogen therapy?  Are you in the early stages of transgender assignment surgery?

Maleness = EVIL.  Any good feminist will confirm this assertion for you, you ridiculous misogynist.

So in Jeff Popovich's world, men should hunt fine Italian shoes, swanky Egyptian cotton bed linens, and the penis and anus of other like-minded men -- or else not be real men?  Is that the gist of your position, Jeff?

My position is bottom.  Always.  I take, I take, I take.  I'm a taker.

How do you reconcile this male-hatred with your sexual lust for same-sex XY chromosomal males, Jeff?  Is that just what The Modern Androgyne is expected to do?  Is there some online or in-print manual you follow for this strange hypocrisy you embody?  Does it contain the journal entries of Ernst Rohm?

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

yeah, I'm sure you do

Chris Hedges has published an essay with the lone purpose of defending - legitimizing - boosting - buffing - polishing the boycott/divest/sanctions "movement" regarding Israel.

He calls the essay, "Why I Support the BDS Movement."

I can save you the time & effort required to read the whole thing and tell you why he supports that "movement."

Here's why.

It doesn't achieve anything.

Friday, July 24, 2015


The beacon of democracy in the Middle East would never do anything to thwart American interests, and therefore we should pay it recompense for America "not budging" on the Iran nukes issue.

Further your affiant sayeth naught.

-- Harold Caidagh, alleged internet provocateur and former staff writer for UNSF

wreck yourself

With Mr Redweld's permission, I am offering one small suggestion for your viewing habits. 

Do yourself a favor and watch the German movie Die Kommenden Tage, viewable on Netflix as The Days to Come

It rates a mediocre 6.4 out of 10.0 on, but in O'Dyan's World, it rates a 9.0/10.0.  Perhaps this means you'll assign a 1.0/10.0 or a 0.0/10.0, but you won't know until you watch it.

-- Anne O'Dyan, elusive former typist for UNSF.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

has been a never was

We're here at the International Moron Breeding Association annual meeting, and about to start a roundtable discussion on why we need to Grow the Sport (TM reserved IMBA) with Flow Trails (TM reserved IMBA) and generalized deference to land managers.  I'm Biffington Barfwell III, your moderator for the discussion.

Seated around the table are the following luminaries of The Sport:

* Spike Grievey, Canadian citizen and click farmer, whom you may know as one of the editorial geniuses responsible for the global internet powerhouse

* Snott Brownes, American citizen and general Pep Booster, whom you may know as a regular commenter at the aforementioned and at second-tier internet outlet

* Verdant Welkum, American citizen and sometime junior scrivener at the publication fatBIKE, whom you may know as an instigator of essential internet debates surrounding such pivotal topics as whether you should carry an artisanal flask of small-batch whiskey when you go for rides longer than 30 minutes from wherever you parked your Porsche SUV with KUAT rack.

* Blevins Razar, American citizen and ubiquitous trustafarian populating all the best (and even the best-est) forum discussions of mountain bikes on the internet, whom you may know from his copyrighted taunts, "I'ma roost yo faissss!" or "You're an idiot!"

* Joah Codminn, American citizen and renowned reviewer of all things MTB, whom you may know from his stellar shares of wisdom at

* Len Bairascz, Canadian citizen and general parts-spec guru at Cocky Fountain Bicycles, whom you may know from his authoritative posts at

* Korie Schwarzwald, American citizen, male feminist and territorial sales manager for Lavadome Bicycles, whom you may know from his profound online condemnations of anyone who isn't a progressive in political outlook.

We will open the discussion with a presentation from Snott Brownes.  Snott, you have the floor.

SB:  Well, tremendous thanks there, Biff, and I'm pleased and proud to be here among such stars of The Sport.  Let me just start by saying I don't think there's a reasonable mind alive today who doubts that we need to GROW The Sport TM, and I don't believe there is anyone who considers himself or herself a mountain biker who would question the need for more Flow Trails TM.  I think the discussion today should focus more on whether we can indeed Grow the Sport TM fast enough, or whether we can successfully replace all existing MTB trails with Flow Trails TM in time to please all the land managers throughout America.  Verdant, what's your take on all this?

VW:  Snott, I've been a journalist for a long time and I've seen a lot of stupid ideas during that time.  One of the stupidest ideas was having trails that aren't immediately accessible to someone who is just learning how to balance on a bicycle.  I have several friends who tried mountain biking back in the early 2000s, and they quit after 2 rides because the trails intimidated them.  Clearly that's a problem.

LB:  As a Canadian who would like to see his employer sell more bikes, I agree completely.  For too long, MTB has been a small niche activity practiced by a bunch of filthy, low-class and generally poor-taste elitists who think that knowing how to balance and maneuver a bicycle is an essential pre-requisite to trail riding.  We can forgive these ignorant cretins for their elitism since they're so unbelievably gauche and insensitive to the needs of Professionals who work 65 hrs/week or more, but we can't let them set the tone and tenor of The Sport any longer. 

KS:  I'd like to remind everyone how reactionary and misogynistic the sport has been since its inception.  True mountain bikers are not elitist and they always vote Democrat.  Anyone who doesn't vote Democrat is a reactionary misogynist who should be burned at the stake.  And not allowed to ride MTBs.

SG:  As one of The Sport's foremost click farmers, I'd just like to throw this thought out for everyone's consideration:  would you rather have Flow Trails TM, or no trails?  Would you rather Grow the Sport TM, or watch approvingly as the government confiscates everyone's bicycle after closing all trails to MTBs?  These are our choices.

JC:  I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on working with land managers.  As far as I'm concerned, we need to bow and scrape to every whim of the land managers, even when we suspect (probably because of undiagnosed psychological illness) that the land managers are behaving irrationally or making policy decisions without supporting evidence.  As far as I'm concerned, they are the authorities, and we need to respect their authority and defer to them no matter what the issue.  Otherwise, the land managers will begin to make policy decisions that might hurt The Sport.  I don't think anyone wants that.

LB:  This gets back to my point about the elitists and their lack of good breeding.  They think that rabble-rousing, anarchy and violent revolution are the way to help maintain MTB access.  I hope you see as clearly as I do that such attitudes are destructive and likely to result in lots of people getting hurt.  Innocent people.  Children, mostly.  Think of the children, as they are our future.  Anarchists deserve to be shot and/or tortured because they threaten the children.  Thus, in order to save the children from being burned alive by the anarchist elitists who used to call the shots back in the early 2000s, we need to obey land managers, Grow the Sport, and build Flow Trails.  Which will lead to more bicycle sales.  Which will let me buy that second house my wife keeps nagging me about.

BR:  I just want to talk about bottom bracket heights.  I mean, what's the deal with those bikes that have BBs higher than 12" off the ground?  I know one of the reasons why that happened and why it continues to this day is people being afraid of rocks, roots and ruts in the trails, but we're all in agreement that Flow Trails TM are the future and therefore we should have flat, smooth trails that let us run 11" BB heights, which will Grow the Sport TM to incredible new participant tallies.  As the smartest guy in the room I can tell you this:  trails are boring when they are rough, not to mention they aren't crowded when they are rough, and I like it when it's crowded, it reminds me of a frat party, and everyone knows frat parties kick ass.  Besides, I get scared when I'm in the woods alone.  Of course with all that CHA-CHING I have in my titanium hand-crafted safe in my workshop, I could pay 3 or 4 bodyguards to ride with me at all times, but then they might get in the way of me spraying roost in the face of anyone who ever made fun of me online. 

JC:  I agree with Blevins.  After all, he has a ski named after him.  Which means he's absolutely, irrefutably correct about anything he says or writes online.

BR:  I agree with Joah, he's written some stellar reviews at twister.  I don't think he's ever been wrong about anything.  I hear he's got a law degree too, which means whatever he says about dealing with land managers is 100% correct.  Law school teaches that kind of diplomatic wisdom, just like engineering school teaches you all you need to know about trail design and bottom bracket height.

SB:  As the only relative amateur in this august grouping of MTB stars, I just want to say, on behalf of all the bikers out there who have only average skills, that the faster we can replace all existing trails with Flow Trails TM and the sooner we Grow the Sport to something bigger than NASCAR, I won't have to explain to my neighbor why it is I drive my Porsche SUV with KUAT rack the 7 miles from my house to the local trailhead.  Everyone will know that mountain biking is more about hangin' with your bros at the trailhead, comparing SUVs and bike racks and bike upgrades.  Riding trails is just what you do to give you a reason to be at the trailhead.  That's why trails need to be Flow Trails TM, and that's why trails need to be easy enough for a paraplegic to ride without adaptive gear.  If you ask me, all MTB trails should be safe enough for a 3 year old child to ride on without crashing and without ever having to use the brakes or pedal or otherwise navigate the trail.  My ideal trail would resemble a slot car track -- you could ride it while sleeping.  The GoPro footy would be stellar!  Plus it would Grow the Sport tremendously!  Every child would love it!  My kids spend waaaaaaaaaaay too much time playing video games and sexting their peers.  If we don't get them out onto Flow Trails soon --and by soon I mean RIGHT NOW, if not yesterday-- we're going to have too many teen pregnancies on our hands.

KS:  Snott, it sounds like you're a misogynist and rapist.  Why do you hate women so much as to fantasize about young girls getting pregnant after sexting?  I bet you are a libertarian!  You're not even a real mountain biker!  Show me your sleeve tattoo!  Show me your iPod songlist.  Is there any Nine Inch Nails on your iPod?  No?  Then you're not a real mountain biker, and you're just a sad repthuglican who needs to die ASAP.

VW:  Korie, we've been friends a long time and I've written some stellar reviews for Lavadome because of that friendship, but even I have to admit -- you're taking things a little too far here.  Snott's one hell of a Pep Booster and his comments around the internet do heaps to Grow the Sport.  In fact, Snott may be the leading candidate for Sport Ambassador - Internet Citizenship.

KS:  Over my dead body.  I bet he didn't even support Obama in 2012.  He's part of the patriarchy!

SG:  I tend to agree with Verdant, but maybe that's because I don't understand Korie's sense of sarcasm.  He is kidding, isn't he?  I can't tell.  Our humor in Canada is so much gentler.  If Korie said those things in Canada he'd get run out of town, probably run out of the country.  Unless he lived in the Nortwest Territories, I guess.  I hear it's a little rough up there. 

KS:  I don't use sarcasm, Spike.  Sarcasm is rude, misogynistic, and a tool of the patriarchy.  I'm dead serious, I won't have any part of The Sport if Snott Brownes becomes Sport Ambassador.  I'll keep my job at Lavadome, of course, but I won't participate in internet discussion any more.  I have enough of that patriarchal privilege in my daily commute, which includes sharing the road with people who don't vote Democrat and who probably don't even own a bicycle.

Friday, July 3, 2015

comedy or comity?

I'm sure you're aware of the SCOTUS decision in King v Burwell, thanks to your favorite "expert" media source telling you that it's a victory for people everywhere.  This same "expert" media source probably told you that the ACA is historically significant because it helps a lot of Americans deal with health care problems.  The "expert" source probably also assured you that the ACA must survive the King v Burwell challenge as well as the prior challenge heard at the SCOTUS, Nat'l Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius -- also known as "the penaltax decision" in some corners.

If you're like the great majority of people I know from my interactions outside the world of The Law, you probably think the role of the SCOTUS is to be arbiter over touchy-feely Social Issues, and you likely assume the role of the Court is to be "progressive" so that America may embody the kinds of "progress" you hold dear yourself.  I'd even bet you would hasten to cite Obergefell v Hodges or Roe v Wade to bolster your position.

However, if pressed on the bases or principles which let you conclude that the SCOTUS is there to resolve matters concerning social progress, you would not be able to defend the position.  You'd scurry about, looking for a Glenn Greenwald or Nina Totenberg to rescue you, because you don't have the legal acumen to make the jurisprudential argument(s) yourself.  Honestly, I blame the American education system, both K-12 and post-secondary, for your relative naivete here.  It's not your fault, not entirely at least.


The SCOTUS is not a social arbiter.  It is an appellate court, and as such, it hears questions of law.

Not facts.


So when you assume a SCOTUS decision is about people in a tight, awkward social bind that cries out for a progressive resolution, you're mistaking SCOTUS for something like Judge Judy or Judge Wapner or some other television judge who hears disputes between people, disputes about factual resolution.

The SCOTUS docket is not about that kind of dispute.  It's about interpretation of the law(s) in question.  And statutory or constitutional provision interpretation is not done by feelings, by a sense of "social justice", or by reference to what is/is not "progress," socially speaking.  The role of the SCOTUS is not to defend or promote social progress.  It is to maintain sanctity of the law, using jurisprudence as its tool.

If you come at these issues from "the left" and you orient your outlook toward "social progress," you are going to have to re-frame your understanding of the US Constitution and its 3-chambered government.

The body tasked with discerning social problems and creating decisions (via legislation) which perform what you'd like to imagine as "social progress"?  That would be the Congress.

The body charged with implementation of such decisions (made via Congressional legislation) would be the Executive branch.

And the entity whose job it is to resolve questions surrounding the Legislative and Executive acts, and their fidelity to the US Constitution?  Can you guess which body that might be?  HINT:  It's not the Congress, and it's not the Executive.

It's the Judiciary.  Read Article III of the Constitution, in case you were wondering or are inclined to doubt me.


When you think of trial courts handling federal law matters in a Judge Judy setting, that's done by the US District Courts.  It's not done by the SCOTUS.

At the SCOTUS level, a case like King v Burwell is not about the particular plaintiffs David King, Douglas Hurst, Brenda Levy and Rose Luck.  It's not about their grievances from a factual standpoint.  Those personalized gripes were heard at the US District Court level.  Once the matter moved on from the US District Court decision via appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the case was about legal interpretation and not factual complaints.

The questions get even more remote and ethereal when the matter moves from a US Court of Appeals to the SCOTUS.  The Court of Appeals is bound to hear appeals from USDC level decisions.  But once you move from US Court of Appeals to US Supreme Court, you have a filter in place.  The SCOTUS hears only cases that require its unique resolution powers.  A typical reason for SCOTUS to hear a legal question brought from a Court of Appeals decision would be a situation where several different federal courts (either District Courts or Courts of Appeals) have interpreted a federal law in disparate fashion.  The SCOTUS then may accept the case in order to resolve the interpretations of the federal law in question.**


A different kind of mandatory appellate review exists for SCOTUS when the case is one which has made its way through a state court system, exhausting all state court appellate decision power.  For example, in Maryland you could have a case which works its way from Maryland District Court or Maryland Circuit Court (the first level trial court) to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (the first level appellate court) to the Maryland Court of Appeals (the highest appellate court).  Once the MD Court of Appeals has ruled on the question, the only legal appeal left to the litigants is to seek a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.  But such a path was not the way King v Burwell ended up in the SCOTUS docket, so for the sake of clarification let's move on from this digression.


When a matter like King v Burwell is discussed in the news media, it is always glossed-over with heart-string-pulling language designed to grab your attention.  Media outlets make their money selling advertisement time, and advertisers pay for click counts and "eyes and ears" on the media put into the infotainment stream accessible to newspaper, magazine, television, radio and internet users.

Thus, King v Burwell is presented to you as a matter of the SCOTUS "ruling on Obamacare" as if the questions presented in King v Burwell were as trite as "Justice Sotomayor, should Obamacare be allowed to stand -- or not?"

If the case were presented in the media as it is presented in briefs and oral arguments at the SCOTUS, the great majority of media consumers would experience an excess of intra-cranial pressure (also known as painful amounts of confusion) due their general ignorance of (1) the law generally, (2) how the law is managed by judges, and (3) the intricacies of appellate review as compared to the facts-based trial court style of judging done by Judge Judy or Judge Wapner on television.

Do not feel insulted by this assertion. Appellate matters are poorly understood even by many practicing lawyers.  Many lawyers who do extensive or exclusively trial work avoid appeals like the plague.  Do you know why that is?

I do.

It's because trial litigation is about feelings, and appellate litigation is about logic and reasoning.

In the American judicial system, if you do litigation which seeks "social progress," you are a trial lawyer.  That's where you get to emphasize how a dispute or event made someone feel.  That's the court where emotional attachments are paramount.  Once you move beyond the trial court level, things change.

Once you get to the appellate level, it's an intellectual game, not a feelings-based emotional enticement to rule in your favor.

So, maybe it would behoove you, help you, benefit you, assist you or inform you further to enlighten yourself on just exactly what the SCOTUS is and what it does, before you assume that Chief Justice Roberts rendered a good decision in King v Burwell.  You may come to learn that despite what Mr Roberts opined, the role of the SCOTUS is not to use feelings and emotional enticements toward preserving the sanctity of the ACA and protecting it from criticism.


Perhaps I'll say more on this later.


** For the truly curious sociopolitical/legal geek who hasn't been through law school and/or hasn't taken a Constitutional Law class in undergraduate studies, it helps to understand Article III, Section 2 as setting the boundaries for federal court jurisdiction.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015


(standard internet celebrity)

(as it were)

This could easily explain former UNSF blog nemesis Jack Crow, or current sociopolitical snake oil salesman Glenn Greenwald, or Greenwald's alter ego, the faaaaaa-bew-lisssss liar Tarzie.

Click farmers who lie about their "expertise".

Standard Joseph Weil stuff, I guess.

Only literally ironic given their SJW perspectives, eh?

Not hipster ironic, therefore not seen as ironic.