Friday, June 27, 2014

drip coffee > cowboy coffee

I don't think you'll find a more empty and meaning-free defense of drip-drip-drip couched in references looking at those not holding power.

Wish I was Joey Ramone, settling for Pompous Fraud instead

Thursday, June 26, 2014

the james bond car had a wicked dashboard switch for belching smoke to drop a tail

So when a pseudo-intellectual gets his or her smoke-puffing engine warmed up and starts belching those opaque clouds:

Conventional wisdom sees a transition somewhere around the 17th century between ancient ‘science’ and the genuine article we know today. Astrology gave way to astronomy, alchemy to chemistry, and the old doctrines of ‘armchair philosophers’ were finally abandoned in favour of hypotheses that could be empirically tested. Galileo’s experiments on motion are a school-room paradigm of the modern scientific method, while Aristotle’s idea that stones fall because they want to get to the centre of the Earth, and fire rises because it belongs in the sky, is typical of the unscientific approach.

you can see the tailing vehicles smashing into smoke-obscured obstacles, spinning blindly off the pavement, or driving off a cliff.

Stones DO want to get to the center of the earth -- that's what the pull of gravity does, and that's what the more meritocratic field of physics eventually realized.

Fire DOES want to get to the sky -- this was shown, again, by the meritocrats studying physics. Warm air rises, cold air sinks. But hold on a minute.  Any climber or hiker or backcountry skier or alpine runner or bicyclist who plays in the mountains will tell you:  temperatures drop as you gain elevation.

Wait, is observing this also some kind of magical thinking?


Blah blah blah. Just because you actually composed an essay-length gathering of facticity it doesn't mean your essay is clarifying anything for us. As with Jack Crow, you are using all manner of logical fallacy in your argument. Confirmation bias and appeals to authority are your biggest flaws.

I'm sure your audience Brights agree, though. That magical thinking is definitely what gets Richard Dawkins' nose out of joint, so it must be an existential enemy ripe for the purging.

you must be this tall

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

more on conduits

I've been watching Boss over the past week or so.  In the first several episodes, I noticed an odd channeling of another actor's style of diction and demeanor.

The guy who plays Ben Zajac (how are you not supposed to imagine Vanna White turning letters when you hear that name?) seems to have channeled the acting of the guy who played Broyles on Fringe.  It's weird at first.  But then as the season progresses you see how Dan Quayle-ish is the Zajac character, and it begins to make sense that he'd just adopt the familiar persona of a TV character who is a well-respected Black man in a position of hush-hush government authority, who has a steely reserve and a tiny bit of the Joe Friday stick-to-the-facts curtness.  It's an inversion referencing Obama as solid in humor as Chappelle's Clayton Bigsby.

He also plays a bit of the Kingfish/Slick Willie, but the driving reference is Broyles.

Kelsey Grammer is good as Kean -- did they intend to give his character the same name as the NJ guy who played a big role in the post-9/11 frenzy of creative distraction and empty analysis?

Kean's daughter is played by a UK actress who can't manage to stay in character, accent-wise.  Watching her preach to her mostly-empty rows of pews or whatever they're called in this fictional (or not) First Presbyterian Church of Chicago, it's almost as painful as watching Will Ferrell try to be funny.  The accent makes me ask a dead-horse question:  why are directors, casting directors or "showrunners" using xenothespians when we seem to have a shit-ton of Americans speaking the dialect and preferred accent and at least 100 of them have to be suitable in every other way for your acting talent and physical presence needs?

I'm guessing it's the SWPL-ish thing of having "exotic" reference points.  "Oh when I was running Pederast Place, I had 2 Aussies, a Scot, an Irish, and a Bangladeshi in my cast of talent.  It was like curating a piece of television history.  Besides, American actors are so boring."

I don't know who cast Kathleen Robertson, but give that person a raise and a bonus.

alex p. keaton says "deregulate and explore outer weed"


"David Stockman is THE MAN!"


"When I'm not reading/commenting at reason, I'm diversifying my portfolio."

You're not less obnoxious and not less obviously a greedy asshole just because you ditched the GOP and traded in the Gordon Gekko for the bacefook Trends Director urban woodsman pseudo-slacker costume.

I understand the urge to separate yourself from the other hipsters, the ones who think they're the vanguard of taste/style culture** while you're the vanguard of the business/consumerism culture.  They're obnoxiously PC and it doesn't take much time in their presence to start dry-heaving.  But why did you run back to the ethics/outlook of Bud Fox's mentor as your identity flagstone?

From where I sit, both of you hipster subcategories are sad, narrow-view tribalists with plenty of hubris in your public stances.  And no, your lame attempts to be bipartisan on pretending at owning irony, while practicing something which isn't that but which you call that anyway in your (as said) hubristic self-certainty -- they don't give you a pass on being obnoxious.  You're not parodying yourselves in a way that's like a knowing wink guaranteed to earn a back atcha

This grasp you fail to have on humor probably corresponds directly with your long-term social outlook.  In your view, "long-term" is 90-120 days.  Build a bubble as an Entrepreneur of the Ether.  Use modern psychological warfare (in your lingo, marketing) to convince people they can't live without this idea or thing you've imagined is profitable if only you can move X units.  If you can make money on it, that's the test of your greatness and the greatness of your idea/thing.  Utility is measured only in terms of whether you can get it to market long enough to move X units. 

It's no wonder your "humor" isn't funny and isn't even sufficiently dark, cynical or sharp enough to qualify as a knuckle-dragging pre-understudy version of irony.  Everything in your world is like the adult life of the mayfly.

If only your adult life matched its, though.  In duration, I mean.


** Known, variously, as progressives or leftists or social-justice-minded-Democrats.  Don't let the different labels fool you, they're all the same:  Daddy State will protect us because Daddy State is staffed with Good People Like Me Who Went To Good Schools and Who Have Noble Intentions.


You'd prefer to listen to Greta van Susteren, Nina Totenberg, Alan Dershowitz, Radley Balko or Glenn Greenwald when it comes to legal matters, and that's because you're stupid AND arrogant. 

Stupid because those listed people are not legal pontiffs, but rather quasi-legal spin artists.  Arrogant because despite what I just said, you continue to think that only the media-sanctified Experts can know anything about that broad subject on which you know absolutely nothing:  the Law.

You'll also think that Tarzie is "on point" because his gay lounge lizard snark toward Greenwald makes you think he's got Greenwald's number (as it were), but Tarzie doesn't know jack shit about the Law, nor about anything outside the universe of the essence of flamboyant downtown gayness.  If you want to know new blow job techniques for use at your favorite sex bunker filled with people like you (XY+XY), seek out Tarzie's wise counsel.  If you want to know what makes Greenwald a bogus artifice, maybe ignore Tarzie as readily as you'd ignore the reason commentariat or Glenn Beck.

I don't recall Greenwald, Balko, Dershowitz, Totenberg or van Susteren telling you what is the problem with modern po-po interpretation of 4th and 5th A rights at stake when they (po-po) want to dive into your iPhone's contents.

However, I do notice that the Supremes just handed down a 9-0 smackdown to Holder/Obama/Emanuel/Rubin/Israel on the subject of po-po leniency where iPhone snoopage is concerned, and I notice that I was correct when I told you earlier what's at stake on the Q.

Naturally, you should continue following your chosen tribal klaxon and partisan expert, because they tell you that you're a genius who needs no deeper investigation or understanding.   There's no way I could know anything on this subject, as I'm not a gay lawyer who lies about his expertise, not a trustafarian twitter-based ripoff of the guy who wrote Live from Golgotha acting as the catty-sphere's hottest purveyor of gay snark, not a Libertarian, not a Zionist, not a familiar NPR voice, and not a bad advertisement for facelift surgery.

Also, as the great sages Krogh Barr and diane! and Sprytel J. Chimchim have told you, I'm just a stupid reactionary who doesn't have sufficient respect for the Lefte Banke's colony of trinket-acquisition-based-progress.

hey Slattery, that's some sincere flattery

If they'd asked me to ghost write this, it would have been even funnier, but I guess when someone is imitating me it's asking too much to request any more than getting halfway there.  You can't know it if you haven't lived it.

Yes, it does a Tarzie-like job of imitating my style but tweaking it for a Purple Dinosaur Barney audience re MTB where Tarzie tweaks for a snarky gay lounge lizard audience re sociopolitics.

Good job.  Being a pale imitation of your superior is far better than being the best you, isn't it?

Sunday, June 22, 2014

apology feigning serious inquiry

George Babbitt has a new column where he blames rogue trailbuilding for the growing anti-MTB sentiment.

George can't see what his own activity has done to cause the anti-MTB sentiment.  But then, why would he look at himself that way?  He's George Babbitt!  Boosting is his essence, and his driving value, and his whole existence.


When you "grow the sport" by enticing people to participate when they weren't already going to become riders by individual drives alone, you create a whole mess of Fad Followers who haven't devoted themselves to riding.  They buy expensive shit, which is what Babbitt really likes and why he works as he does.  The more expensive shit we see coursing through the waters of commerce, the happier Babbitt is.  This is why his writing is always boosting.  This is why his criticism is always tepid and for the most part, distraction under pretense of objectivity.

"Grow the sport" faddists get expensive new bikes that they don't know how to ride. These expensive bikes have great suspension and handling circa 2014 (as compared to the pre-boom era that existed a scant decade ago), which means faddists haul ass at speeds well above where they can brake effectively and sufficiently avoid collisions and other trail mishaps.

The faddists come careening down hills thinking descenders have the right of way.  Of course they do, right?  MOUNTAIN DEW, BRAH!  EXTREME!  explains one of the perspectives thinking this way.  STRAVA RECORD IN THE MAKING, BRO!  explains another.  Rookie ignorance is the underlying cause.  Rookie was boosted into the sport with the puff-ups offered by Babbitt and his boys at stinkbike.  And by the jr high school-level "informed commentary" you can find at VitalMTB.  And by the Trinkets-R-Us! discussions found at NSMB.

With so many faddites riding well over their heads, bad trail encounters are bound to happen, and with so many people operating under the Spoiled Fucking Brat mindset that grows out of Every Child A Precious Unique Snowflake perspective, the wrongdoers can't even imagine they are riding like assholes.

But they are.  Straightening chicanes, widening trails into tracks, shortcutting wherever the trail might slow them down or make them feel less than Godlike.  Removing rocks & roots because that's what bikepark is!

All of this has been sold to Internet Viewers of MTB Related Content during the past decade of boomtime, and it's really ramped up in the past 3-4 years to the point that now, if you observe any of what I've just said, you're accused of being "elitist" (as if that really means anything useful or adds anything useful to analyzing the problems) and told that you need to help "grow the sport".


On top of what I've just said we have the general pitch now offered by all MTB Babbitts -- that everything should be "flowy" or otherwise resembling a BMX ish layout proceeding down a hill; that everything should be groomed; that everyone should feel immediately gratified despite rookie status; that nobody should ever work on improving their skills.

Because, y'know, that way nobody would buy expensive shit.  OOPS.  There goes Babbitt's badass industry insider job.


I'm sorry, Richard Cunningham, but you're far more to blame for what's happening now than any rogue trailbuilder.

belched without apology

Let me get this straight:  so, given that BLM and USFS have parallel interests differently parceled out bureaucratically/systemically, and given they have divergent land management strategies -- then, that divergence would cause a BLM person to "leak" USFS land management practice details in order to palliate some kind of bureaucratic jealousy? 

This theme of skulldiggers being jealous over excavation tool one-upsmanship is laughable.  Exactly where do spook interests diverge, when compared to the interests of individual citizens?

Friday, June 20, 2014

face-up poker

Did you know that the city of McBoulder and the State of Neuwestia were under barrage from the US Attorney concerning the handling of a rape accusation at the University of Neuwestia?  The keen-suited meritocrats who work for one Eric Holder were telling the locals y'all don't know what yer doin & we's here to do it proper-like.

The US Constitution, a once-fabled document now reduced to the status of bathroom tissue thanks to many operative decisions by the good stewards of Eye-for-an-Eyelash, allegedly has a provision within it called "our Federalism" under which it is often contended that power should be devolved to the states.  This juvenile imagination product sits in contention with what others call "reality" -- that the big Daddy Protector is the boss, and if you, child, believe yourself fit to govern your own conduct and its ramifications, then you have another thing coming!  Daddy will cut off your allowance.

And without that allowance, you're not gonna be able to build fancy new developments when you play Sim City.  Hell, you're not even gonna get Urban Renewal Projects going!

Sim City is the reality you prefer to inhabit, given that the meatspace variety doesn't often go according to whim and expectation. 

So you'll make a show of "this is our turf, we can govern it just fine," but you'll cave.

And you'll realize that when Holderites wade into your stream without asking permission to cross your land (let alone enter your waters), he was just dropping by to let you know that even though you're now technically an adult, you're still on his tab.  You're just another trustafarian kiddie at university, living like a rich kid because daddy is generous on that tab.

Sometimes he even sends you a copy of his monthly credit card bills, as a reminder of how grand his largesse bestowal. 


So, the reason Holderites stopped by, then set up shop, and proceeded to lurk and bother? 

You look at that credit card bill, and are stymied.

I don't think you should be graduating any time soon.  But here you are.  4.0 with a double major.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

sanctified by ed-glenn-pete, accepted without complaint by you

Hal?  Chet.  Got a minute?

Sure, what's up?

Listen, remember that diagnostic interview Eaton did?

Yeah, what a stupid waste of time.  How inept are those Butz Cox idiots anyway?  Who'd choose a moron like her, still wearing her intellectual training bra?

So what if they had a different expert, someone who actually knew how to pick apart the blog and try to make something lucrative out of their claims of insult and legitimate injury?

You think they have someone who is smart enough?  I think it's shit-easy to fake dire emotional injury and requires no brainpower to pretend those fake injuries are serious and worth some kind of compensation.  But how are they going to handle the comedy angle?  You think they can show somehow that the comic nature of the blog is either non-existent or irrelevant?

They can easily find witnesses who they'll no doubt offer as experts.  Who can seem really sincere when claiming that no sane person could find the blog funny.  Some jurors will be convinced by it.  Nobody should be convinced, but our society is pretty damned ignorant in 2014, Hal.  People get steamrollered by pseudo-science and other kinds of intellectual fraud whenever there's an angle available to play on emotional issues and identity politics.  A lot of people treated as experts in the media are expert only in hucksterism.  There's a lot of gullible people out there, Hal.  Some of them will make their way onto the jury panel.

The same sort who drop by and leave really angry comments.

The same.

The ones who think Barney the Purple Dinosaur speaks for everyone.

The same.

The ones who insist that everything be fancy and polite on the surface.  No rough edges.

Yep.  That's them.

You'd think we were talking about Mormons or Christians here.

Well to be fair I wouldn't think that.  But I bet a lot of people who somehow were able to eavesdrop on our conversation -- well they'd think that.

Isn't it funny how a lot of people out there under a certain identity--

Hal, let's not name anyone in particular here.

--they like to talk about how repressed their tribal enemies are?  How they need to loosen up on some of their moral strictures, quit telling others how to live?

Sure.  I hear you.

You really would think we were talking about Mormons or Christians.  Or Islamic Fundamentalists. Or NRA members.

So, anyway, Hal -- try to think about the opposite side securing a better-qualified expert than Eaton.  I'm wondering if the reason we aren't seeing Eaton's report is because they're not going to use her.  If there's enough money behind that lawsuit, they'll find a more ...err... persuasive expert the second time around.  Know what I mean?

Friday, June 13, 2014


Vital RAW - Leogang World Cup Friday - More Mountain Bike Videos

sin tax

I don't know what got into my client today.  After seeing that entry earlier, I was forced to spend my lunch hour trying to not like this song:

It deserves to be disliked because the band has its own Wikipedia entry and appears to find favor with hipster critics.

Once a concept has become canon, it cannot be ignored.

karlito's wei

It's very possible you've never considered things from this perspective, Whitey, so before I continue I'd like you to make your very best effort at dropping your tendencies to engage in (1) autonomic defense of the political views in which your social identity is invested, and (2) "research" driven by confirmation bias.  Please also lay rest to any impulse that involves projection of those components within your existential fears which arise from the operation of the political views just mentioned.


Were I an academic, I would begin here with:

It is axiomatic that...

but I am not prone to using cliche except in service of a comical end.  Nonetheless,

it is axiomatic that the knee-jerk defensive move of any confident leftist is to accuse his/her/its imagined adversary of a particularly terrible crime:  that of working under or within a reactionary mindset.

If we were to parse the accusation, we would see that it aims to do two things:  (1) insult the imagined adversary, and (2) project an aura of oneness with progress.

What is the operative meaning, in of-course-we're-left-of-Sarah-Palin-land, of the term "reactionary"?  Has it been defined accurately?

One good progressive used a whole book's worth of obfuscatory ivory tower jargon masquerading as informative analysis regarding this very question, and despite those efforts (which reminded me of Heracles at the Aegean stables) still couldn't come up with a brief one-sentence definition.

Apparently it's a very complex state of mind.

While also being a sociopolitical identity epithet.

Maybe we should just see how it's used in everyday practice by internet-based armies who battle mightily each day for the overarching cause of progress.


In each such instance where I've encountered the use of the term "reactionary" as a descriptive term, it was phrased in the accusatory.  Sometimes a person was being accused, sometimes a policy was being accused, and sometimes it's just a supposed state of mind being accused.

In the former cases the situation is a little less nauseating because you can explain it away with the usual drives:  ego defense, tribalism, social insecurity-based psychopathologies.

Encountering the latter case gets pretty close to how I'd imagine it would be if eating salt water taffy and finding out, mid-tooth-yanking-chew, that it contains Syrup of Ipecac.

But then, broad-spectrum category blaming has been the progressive way for over 100 years of American history.  So I really should be able to overcome the nausea.

And I have.

Here's how.

I notice the lampoonable hypocrisy of this obsession with accusations orienting themselves toward identifying the accuser as being one-with-progress.

If your intellectual keystone / political identity role model / academic theorist ubermensch is a guy who lived & wrote about stuff that happened 150 years ago in Germany,

how are you not locked into a dead view that's rooted in a long-gone past?

how are you not the reactionary?

Is it because you mouth the words which protest otherwise?

-- Hal Caidagh, army of one

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

yes, please! I'll gladly enter that little prison cell and happily lock the door behind myself!

Whatever you want.  Just so long as I get to keep distracting myself with pseudo-insights.  Pseudo-insights help me greatly.  They enable avoidance of personal responsibility, and let me demonize others who are "responsible."  Because they're psychopaths.

That's surely the win-win analysis right there.