Saturday, June 25, 2016

not the town in Maryland

On the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay sits a small town known as Chestertown.  I visited it several times in my youth; one of my HS friends was born to parents who grew up there.  It remains a relatively quiet little town, where people are not in a hurry -- not in daily living as a matter of pace, and not toward adoption of things just because they're shiny and new.

You may have heard that the Eastern Shore is full of old crackers, but every time I've visited there I've marveled at the equal-footing interactions among Blacks and Whites alike.  This might be due to the fact that relative to someplace like Annapolis or greater Montgomery County, Chestertown is tiny, backward, and somewhat poor in median income.  It may be due to the fact that many people work in agriculture or bringing in the fish and shellfish bounty of the Bay.


Chestertown was not named, albeit with erroneous spelling, for G.K. Chesterton.  Chestertown is not the font of Christian or Roman Catholic thinking on theology, mankind, or what it means to be human.  It's just a town on the Eastern Shore, a place where people tend to know they have more in common with each neighbor despite different last names, different skin tones, or different jobs worked.

Chesterton is a different topic.


In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

The quote above is from G.K. Chesterton, and the idea quoted above has come to be known as "Chesterton's Fence."

You can find all sorts of discussions of Chesterton's Fence if you do an internet search of the phrase.  One such discussion had these pithy words to say:

Smart young lawyers (and stupid older ones as well), filled with passion and vigor, want to remake the legal world to cure all the problems they see. With their zeal, they rush to tear down fences they see only as blocking their path to Utopia, oblivious as to why that fence could possibly be there. It seems so pointless to them. Knock it down!

There are fences whose utility has come and gone, that are ripe for demolition. There are fences that were built as well as they could be at the time, but can now be built better. And there are fences that better be left alone or really bad things will happen. Knowing which fence is which before doing the damage is critical.

That's from a lawyer who operates what he calls "a criminal defense blog." I didn't read elsewhere on the blog so I can't say whether I agree with his self-description of the blog.

However, I can say that I've seen such "smart young lawyers... filled with passion and vigor, want[ing] to remake the legal world to cure all the problems they see." I've also seen the "stupid older ones" who do likewise.

More importantly, I've seen the notion pushed outside law practice into socio-political discussion -- for example, when a legal ignoramus and/or layperson asserts that the role of the SCOTUS is to be a mediator of social friction and, more particularly, one who is attuned to the fad-bubble meme-du-jour in Social Justice Warrior banter.


In my personal life I often encounter people, among whom are some of my friends, who have little shame when offering a thought that is completely unformed and untutored or unexamined.

There's nothing wrong with doing this as a conversational staple, sometimes a person needs to vent, sometimes a person needs to plant a seed for further discussion, and sometimes a person simply cannot stand moments of silence.

What is galling is when someone offers an idea with great conviction and certitude, and defends it with an appeal to authority or any other logical fallacy.

"But Huffington Post said...."

"I watched a documentary which showed...."

"Last night on Fox News, ____________ said ______________.  Can you believe that ____________ objected to ___________ on the ground that _____________ is going to happen as a result of this major decision on ___________?"

The foregoing examples are scaled in complexity, but each rests upon logical fallacy and a gullibility arising from confirmation bias.


Chesterton's Fence prompts one to first ask why a certain notion or thing was created.

If you don't ask that question, whatever reform you undertake after clearing the landscape of the existing notion or thing, it's going to be ill-considered and may even result in a worsening of the problem.


In the case of Brexit:

If you assume the Yes vote by the UK is horrible, did you bother investigating why the EU was formed?

Have you examined the ways in which EU membership has wreaked havoc on member nations' domestic economies?

Do you just automatically assume globalizing means social progress?

Have you ever asked yourself why you assume that?

Have you ever looked into the possibility that change is not progress, it's just change -- and change can be positive, negative or neutral?

I'd suggest trying some of these challenges yourself.  Learn a little more about what you pontificate on.  Understand the background of events and ideas and things before you assume they need to be changed.  Understand holistically how these events, ideas and things have performed/worked since they were introduced.

Ask yourself how well Greece fared as a result of EU membership.

Ask yourself how well Ireland fared as a result of EU membership.

Ask yourself these things even if you're not Greek or Irish yourself, even if you don't have any connection back in your family tree to either nation's people.

Ask yourself why you have assumed "globalization" is best.

Keep asking.

--Chet Redweld, who cannot imagine practicing law at anything above a gutter level without using Chesterton's Fence as a strategic reminder.

Friday, June 24, 2016

sickly, pale, weak, insecure, childish and pathetic

Do you know Nancy Isenberg?

Nancy is a "famous" history distorter and fiction writer.

She resembles Elizabeth McGovern, but hasn't got McGovern's self-assurance, composure, magnetism or maturity.


To prove to Seis Puntas, Shiny Betty and the Mossy Add that she deserves an honorary Israeli citizenship, Nancy "researched" and then wrote a fictional narrative called

White Trash: the 400-year-old untold history of class in America

and it's not the sort of black humor you'd expect from someone like Lenny Bruce.


It's a compendium of condescending recollections by people with pitiful sieve-like errant memories and an embarrassing need to feel superior.


What motivates a pseudo-scholar to do such a thing as write this kind of false history?

Could it be that her mind was warped from kindergarten through award of PhD by Frankfurt School softly peddled Marxist thought, and from that we can discern a distinct hatred toward los pobrecitos, which thereby shows one of the real aims of Marxism?

In case you were wondering, that real aim would be this:

Through hagiography, eliminate the lowly blue collar worker by disparaging him or her when caucasian but not a practitioner of Judaism.

(the word "hagiography" is very pretentious, but as a matter of economic saving of letters typed, it fits best here)

(feel free to replace it with this:  utter bullshit masquerading as accurate historical accounts)


I know this isn't common, and perhaps happens so rarely as to be struck from everyone's "records", but what about the poor blue collar Jew in America?

I knew a few of them in high school.

They were distinguished by their failure to pretend at a superiority found among those from the same race and religion but slightly higher socioeconomic standing.

They didn't act like they were better than the blue collar situation they found themselves in.  They didn't pretend they deserved to be Kings but struggled to live as serfs.

Is it permissible in politically correct hagiography to name the blue-collar Jew as being a member of White Trash?

I don't mean anything by it.  I'm just sayin'.

-- Harold Caidagh, who has been afflicted with a white rash his entire life, and who grew up among people who didn't even own a necktie or "sport jacket" let alone suit.  He assumes this makes him a member of the awful White Trash sector in America, but he doesn't feel the shame that Nancy "sociopathic liar" Isenberg wants him to feel.  Rather, he feels what he has for many years called Redneck Pride, and would enjoy introducing this concept and perspective to "doctor" Isenberg whenever she'd like to entertain his presence.

what's the status, cincinnatus?

Given the lads' apparent intemperance on the subject of religio/ethno identity narcissism, perhaps it falls upon me as Chief Steward to ensure the Mess Hall is suitably ship-shape.

What, exactly, has been the point of this seemingly schizophrenic blog?

You want to know, don't you?

You wonder why the blog seems to consistently target Jews lately, gays previously, and Marxists eternally.

You want to ask a question similar to one of these:

"Chet, what's wrong with Marxism?"

"Mr Redweld, why are you a homophobe?"

"Sleazy lawyer Cheat Rotwood, shouldn't we execute you for your anti-Semitism?"


Because reading comprehension is a long-lost talent in American culture, and because 98% of you did not attend a good elementary school and therefore did not, when sponge-minded, learn to appreciate critical thinking and healthy self-doubt (as contrasted against self-as-victim), you have missed the very consistent theme of this blog:  values.

"Value," in this sense, is not about getting a great deal on a new car or McMansion.

It's also not about taking your own personal prejudices and calling them "values."

The view of "values" communicated here is much more holistic, and probably a lot more tree-tops in perspective, rather than bipedal humanoid in view.

This blog is about consistent themes, cohesion in an argument advanced in favor of a particular perspective.

So what, exactly, is that perspective?


When you choose to act on anything or toward anyone, what are you choosing?

What sits beneath that choice?

What drove it?


If you are other-driven, externally oriented, tribalist in nature, you start from a flawed perspective.

What is the flaw?

You don't see the flaw.  You're extraverted, you want to be popular, you want adulation for your in-crowd status.  You seek celebrity.

But the flaw is glaring to introverts.

And the flaw is simply stated.

The flaw is in the "wisdom" of the masses.


Your parents probably tried to teach you this lesson the first time you got caught doing something they didn't like, especially if it seemed to them as if you did this unlikeable thing because of peer pressure.

"If Johnny jumped off a 12 story building, does that mean you should do it too?"

"If Mary lit her cat's hair on fire to see what happens, does that mean you should do it too?"


Instead of thinking about this, you're now going to argue with me.  "The Mary example is stupid.  Girls don't behave cruelly toward animals.  You're a sexist, a misogynist.  Only boys do such life-destroying things!"

There's your blind spot, Mr Magoo.  And you're not as funny as Jim Backus, so don't try to play it off as a "joke," please.

You've adopted The Masses View on gender, misogyny, the patriarchy.

You never bothered to examine it.  You just adopted it.

To fit in.

To be "popular."

Or, in really sad cases, to seem "progressive" and "intellectual."

But what you're really trying to do is divide, while claiming a unifying perspective as your own.


If you say you want "social justice" but you try always to label and divide through category-demonization, you're not working toward social justice.  You're trying to make your personal prejudices into The Rule.

You're assuming everyone thinks exactly as you do, holds the same blind spots, harbors the same delusions, suffers from an identical illogic.

If you want social justice, then be honest about your own views, desires, wants, and alleged needs.

Let others be honest about theirs.

And then let's work together from a point of commonality to arrive at something much more negotiated, and much less forced upon others.


It's the point of commonality that is your own personal hurdle, tumbleweed.

Let me give you a big fat example.

Over the past year, anyone paying the mildest attention to the 2016 POTUS "race" has been able to see that the Same Old Same Old is not holding sway any longer.

On the R side, classic Party Faithfuls have shifted to supporting Trump.

On the D side, lifelong Sincere Team Players shuffled over to endorsing Sanders.

This says there's a lot of commonality at one obvious level:  the duopolistic monopoly is a failure.

And I bet if you dug deeper, without any partisan agenda in play, you'd find that the Trumpists and Sandernistas agree that FedGov is corrupt beyond repair.

Where they disagree is on who gets blamed for the irreparable status.


Perhaps, at this point in the analysis, you might see the value in putting aside your impulse to category-blame.

While Trumpists say the problem is we need to close the borders, Sandernistas say the problem is bigotry against immigrants.

What's the real problem they're not discussing while pretending to analyze it?

Loss of jobs.  Inability to support one's self and family.

But don't stop there.


In the new Big Data economy, people are getting paid massive sums for non-work pseudo-productivity.

Do you really think that more data is the solution?

Waiting for more data, wanting more data -- that's about putting off the act of getting at the core of the problem and doing something about it.

The problem is rooted in value choices, not insufficient data.

Why don't you chew on that for a while, see what sort of cud it makes for you, and see if you find yourself being led to the abbatoir where you'll be transformed from This Life as a Cow, to The Next Life as Fresh Meat?

-- Chet Redweld, who enjoys detached analysis more than most, and who never lets another's mistaken conclusions about his supposed prejudices stop the process.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

moe-FUCKING-ron, making big bucks for big LIES

(((Glenn Greenwald)))

Imagine if, in 2006, someone told you: "10 years from now, Dems will be the leading proponents of extra-judicial watch lists & no-fly lists"

Did he actually say that?

Yes.  He did.


Like another self-impressed idiot, Jeff Popovich / BLCKDGRD, floppy wristed (((Glenn Greenwald))) has spent an entire life stumping for the Donkey Squad and pretending that NO, I NEVER! on the subject of past fawning, fellating support for Team Donkey.

When I first encountered (((Glenn Greenwald))) he was working the Unclaimed Territory blog, which was filled to the brim with GO TEAM GO! chants and cheers for Team Donkey, and worse than that, it was overstuffed with EVIL REPTHUGLICAN CHRISTER-CRACKER MISOGYNIST BIGOT HOMOPHOBES blaming -- especially in areas where Democrats were clearly at fault.

Just like dipshitty Jeff Popovich, (((Glenn Greenwald))) wants his moronic followers to believe that (((Glenn Greenwald))) always has been ON TOP OF THINGS with CLEAR INSIGHTS.

Just like stupidfuck Jeff Popovich, (((Glenn Greenwald))) banks on your memory going back only 15-20 minutes rather than 15-20 weeks or months or years.  Fifteen or twenty minutes ago, Jeff Popovich and (((Glenn Greenwald))) were pretending they'd never been rent boys for Team Donkey.


I don't know what's worse. 

An obvious Mossad asset like (((Glenn Greenwald))) mindfucking his readers/followers with a continual CAN'T PROVE I SAID DIFFERENTLY BRO! shapeshifting Team Hexagon/Seis Puntas strategy of lies? 


A smug, self-important poetaster like Jeff Popovich acting like he's always been skeptical of Team Donkey, despite a 40 year track record of sucking donkey dick and taking donkey dick in his ass?

Please leave your comment regarding who wins.

-- Charles F. Oxtrot, who saw these fraudulent fucks for what they were over 10 years ago, while both of the lying lizards were blindly pursuing fame and fortune as a Team Donkey Hole-for-Hire.

stupid, cocky, and unable to weather criticism

You want BREAKING NEWS of a kind you can't get from the BlogTrust, the Frilly Blouse Brigade, the Transgender Scouting Troop, or (((Glenn Greenwald)))?

Here it is.

During Janet Yellen's testimony earlier today before the Senate Banking Committee, she asserted that the Fed has the legal grounding for negative interest rates.

Though she couched the certitude about legal authority in skeptical language, the real core message is that the Fed thinks it's perfectly legal and acceptable to use (-) interest rates.

And if the Fed thinks that, then the Fed will act upon it. 

Seis Puntas uber alles!

Team Hexagon!

(((Janet Yellen)))

(((Federal Reserve Bank)))

CHRISTER-CRACKERS TAKING OVER US GOVT! says Jeff Popovich, idiotically ignorant of any grounding in reality, but well-versed in ideological snark and self-assured fake wisdom.

-- Paul Behrer, who will gladly carry the casket of any member of Team Hexagon, since that means one fewer reactionary psychopath on the landscape.

Monday, June 20, 2016


It's everyone else's fault that I experience angst, envy and jealousy, and it's their fault I'm not popular.

For example:  the USA should be Socialist, but isn't due to RIGHTWING ASSHOLE CRACKERS!

I want Socialism because I want everything handed to me, especially POPULARITY.

My shrink told me I should have given up on that teenage goal some time around age 21.

HOLYFUCK is that shrink an IDIOT, probably a Christer-Cracker RIGHTWING asshole too.

I've never really examined Socialism, but I know it's what all the Kool Kids endorse.

And I've known since 7th grade that the Kool Kids know EVERYTHING!

The Kool Kids told me I should listen to Arvo Part and Morton Feldman.

I listened to both.  Didn't like either one, but I really really want to be a Kool Kid.

Then I realized:  Part & Feldman are Kool because their art is shitty, and shitty art pisses off CRACKERS!

Around the same time, I started playing with poetry, and focused on really shitty poetry.

I chose poetry because the greatest number of gay dudes were into poetry, more than painting even.

I told myself I was progressive for befriending gay dudes and courting their attention with shitty poetry.

If my grandparents hadn't been CRACKERS I might've realized I was rationalizing my own desire to suck cock.

Because Grams & Paps were CRACKERS I could not be open with my desire for COCK-o-RAMA.

Instead of being comfortable with being a faggot, I chose to get married and have a kid.

I had to do this because of RIGHTWING Cracker Christer asshole bigot patriarchy promoters.

Fucking RIGHTWING makes me lack self-confidence.  HOLYFUCK!

If we were a Socialist nation, I would be married to Sergio with 12 cats 4 parakeets and a pair of gerbils.

Instead I'm married to a vagina-bearer and have a vagina-bearer as my offspring.  HOLYFUCK.


-- Harold Caidagh, who finds Jeff Popovich's galaxy of blindspots and universe of hypocrisies the easiest truckload of joke fodder to transport.

whose vision is clearest?

Looks to me like Chet Redweld sees clearest of all.

Analog to GRH vs UNSF/Caidagh.

Why is Seis Puntas trying to tell the RC Church how to do its business? 


-- Harold Caidagh, expecting Israel to declare war on the Vatican in 3...2...1....

Sunday, June 19, 2016

yo, Mr-Ms-Zs-Xs Treble Parentheses!

How's about you stop projecting your FUCKING PARANOIA onto every non-Jew you encounter?

1) Your claims that Christians "are taking over US Govt" or "have always run US Govt" are your way of hiding the GREEDY JEW takeover of that Govt as well as state and local ones.  PROJECTION to hide evil intent.  No wonder you keep getting kicked out of nations around the world.

2) To those of you who munch carpet or suck pole, your insecurity about being Gay or Lesbian causes you to assume everyone ELSE definitely HATES you for your same-sex sex-having.  Again, you're wrong and PROJECTING.  No wonder you keep getting kicked out of nations around the world.

3) Your desire to bring Multi-Culti to everyone everywhere is a big glaring problem showing your solipsistic psychopathic destructiveness.  Let's look at your Theocratic Homeland:  ISRAEL.  In ISRAEL, non-Jews are 2d class citizens if not on-the-spot deportation or extermination candidates.  ISRAEL is not practicing Multi-Culti AT ALL.  It's doing the diametric opposite.  Say one thing, do the opposite?  No wonder you keep getting kicked out of nations around the world.

4) Your desire to "progress" every new locale you move to is yet another glaring ethno-religious flaw you harbor.  You make NO ATTEMPT at integrating, always staying separate, telling your children they can't date, kiss, or fuck a goyim.  Certainly they can't marry one.  Your agenda is to convert every place you live into a Jew-dominated landscape.  No wonder you keep getting kicked out of nations around the world.


It's your misanthropic, anti-social, narcissistic practice AS A GROUP which causes antipathy toward you.

You want to believe in Yahweh, in Chosen-ness, in Star of David?  Fine.  Please do that.

You want to try to convert me, or my town's local government, or the character of my town?  Get ready to experience my fist crashing into your face.  Get ready to feel my foot exploding your testicles.  Get ready to lose to Chet Redweld in litigation.  Get ready to have your pathetic metrosexually oriented, gender-indeterminate MiniJews harassed, beaten up, etc by their peers since most humans who aren't MiniJews don't like arrogant selfish fucktards.

Get ready for your comeuppance, in other words.  The world is once again turning against your globalizing narcissistic plans.  Another Hitler isn't needed.

We're gonna start by taking down Mark Tushnet and your little bad-breath bulldog Binny Net&Yahoo better buy some life insurance.

-- Harold Caidagh, who fears no Jew.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

I take pipe in my poop chute, that makes me a sociopolitical genius!

The mills closed 30 years ago. The only people who associate Pgh with steel are features editors & sportscasters.

We can translate this for you:

Team Hexagon has cleaned up Pittsburgh for Seis Puntas and Teh Gehys.

-- Harold Caidagh, who assumes Jacob Bacharach's heritage as a scion of Big Jew Money in PGH compels him to speak disdainfully about the steel industry's history in the town, because steel mills are grimy blue collar operations and Jakey's quite refined and always has the freshest manicure.

thweetie, you jutht awen't attthh thwell or weefyned attthhh meeeeeee!

Q: What do you call me, Tarzie, Chah-Wee, Jakey, Blackie & Billmon?

A: A big puddle of sperm in the aftermath of a circle-jerk.

Q: For how long will I continue to be The Dupe while thinking myself The Grifter?
A: For as long as it takes me to break free of my identity angst originating in 1975.
Q: Why am I so clueless about everything, including literature and poetry?
A: MoCo Public Schools, MOTHERFUCKER!
Q: How did MCPS get so corrupted while I thought them BEST IN CLASS?
A: I can't talk about that, because I might lose my job.
Q: Why would talking about it make me lose my job?
A: Christers are to blame and my employer is the Catholic Church.
Q: For matters outside poetry, where do I get my information?
A: Certified LEFTIST experts & pundits, conveyed to me on twitter.
Q: Why do I blame the RIGHTWING for everything?
A: See prior answer.

-- Harold Caidagh, who wonders how a self-appointed intellectual can imagine himself intelligent or holistic while rejecting every single idea that doesn't jibe with the self-appointed intellectual's present tack.

Friday, June 17, 2016

undeveloped brain, immature cognition, delusions of omniscience

Hillaryite Colleague said, I don't understand why you don't talk and blog more about motherfucking rightwingers. I said, what would you have me say?

Gosh, that Chalupa has the most subtle satire ever, doesn't he?  Referencing a question to him about why he doesn't ping Repthuglican Insane Whackjobs more, when in truth that's all he's ever done on his blog:  blame the RIGHTWING ASSHOLES WHO MADE-MAKE-WILL FOREVER MAKE JEFF POPOVICH'S LIFE IMPERFECT!

Then we get another HAH HAH SEE I CATFISHED YOU, OXY! "revelation" talking about his "true politics" --

Beware wannabe (when retired, house paid off, pension secure) anarchist propagandist and animal rights terrorist.

Look, he's "mocking" anarchists by saying it's only something you do when fantasizing about retirement.  Clearly, the best path is Leftist Bernie Sanders Support or Left-M/L-Green(ish) Jill (((Stein))) Support.  That way, you're not anyone's dupe.

Except when you are, for 56 years of Earth time and 41 years of semi-adult time.


Meow-Meow Cat Meme blogging doesn't make you anything but a poofter, Jeffrey.  Good job, now you're a 3d string Jake Fuckmybackdoor.  Who himself is a 4th string Michael Chabon.  Who, in turn, is a cheap, 5th rate (((anxious Jewish schlub))) attempt at F. Scott Fitzgerald.

None of this should bother you, since you didn't make Varsity Soccer in HS or college.

Always no better than 4th string, Jeff Popovich shouts loudly to tell the world, "I'm a SERIOUS athlete!"


That's why, instead of playing any sport whatever, Jeff is just a fan of "pro" sports to an obsessive degree, worrying to the point of teeth-grinding-when-sleeping about whether the hockey season lasts too long, the baseball season not long enough, the football season inconveniently overshadowing the footy-ball / soccer season.  All of this, because of RIGHTWING ASSHOLES TRYING TO MAKE JEFF'S LIFE A LIVING HELL.


Hah hah hah, sniffed Chalupa's disembodied voice nowhere within sighting of the stuffed miniature chihuahua dog typically offered as proxy in lieu of holographic projection.

I've been mocking YOU all along, and you DID NOT SEE IT!  HAH HAH HAH!

now loudly, louder with each word, screamed the little stuffed animal.


Say hello, Walter Mitty.

Say hello.

-- Pawl Bear-Ur, whose spell-check program sometimes misfires

Thursday, June 16, 2016

seasoned experts

If I played guitar, I'd consider it a lifetime treat to know someone like Seymour Duncan.

Another observation: Nels Cline wasn't a household name until he affiliated with Wilco. Did he suck before he gained notoriety?

-- Chet Redweld, who plays no instruments and envies those who do play, and who first discovered Nels Cline in the early 90s thanks to exposure to the music venues of the megacity NYC, a place he's glad to see in the rear view mirror.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

it's a record of goo. a goo journal, maybe a goo log.

Mr Solzhenitsyn spoke the truth, but you don't want to hear it because you were "educated" by people who were trained in Frankfurt School soft-peddling of Marxist-Leninist collectivism.  You are governed by what "feels fair" rather than what IS fair.  Or maybe fairness is of no concern to you, because you are Chosen.

The main problem with this emotional pull toward "fairness" and "equality" is that you can't beat what exists naturally -- humans vary from person to person in talent, ability, intellect, compassion, humility.  There is no "level playing field" in humanity.  There's just a field on which we all get a chance to do our thing(s), whatever it(they) may be.

The humane solution to inequality is a humane, individual response.

We see how such humanity plays out in Israel, as regards the natives of Palestine.

There is no compassion.

There is no humanity.

There is no empathy.


This little piggy ran all the way home.

To avoid the butcher.

To stay kosher.


-- Harold Caidagh, who once again reminds you that he doesn't care what religion/worldview you want to follow, as long as you do not insist everyone else follow the same.

track 9, Brighten the Corners

I'm stuck.

Well what does that mean?

Underused.  Talent, wasted.  Undervalued.

So do something about it.  Go get a job.

Well that's what I've been trying to do for several years now.  To no avail.

You're not trying hard enough.

I think you should push this boulder uphill for a while, see how it works.  Or doesn't.

That's the sort of attitude that put you in this predicament.  Everyone knows finding work is its own full-time job.  Are you putting in 8 hrs a day?

I did.  At the start.  With fervor, positive attitude, and a welcoming hand.


It yielded nothing.  Unemployment.  And the state unemployment office won't give me any money, because I left my last job voluntarily.

That can't be right.  Have you gone to the state capitol to talk to the unemployment office staff?

It's a 2 hour drive.  I have a phone.  I've called.  I've researched the unemployent laws and regulations.

So you haven't gone to the state capitol?

Why are you redirecting my comments?  Is it not unfair that I paid 5 years worth of unemployment contributions only to have them not go to me when I'm unemployed myself?

You have to work with the system you have.  Warts and all.

And that's what's left me unemployed.  Working with that system.

So go from door to door, asking employers for work.

I've done the equivalent.  I'm always overqualified.  The honest employers say, "we hire you, you get bored in 3 months and quit, and now we have to find someone else.  No dice, no sale."

Is that true?  Would you quit in 3 months?

Maybe.  I've quit jobs after 4-5 months.  Twice.  Once at age 17, once at age 24.  The first one because of a bizarre boss; the second because the work was sold as requiring a BS in biology or chemistry, but the work didn't require any of the training for either.  Anyone could have done it.  They tried to offer me a promotion to R&D where supposedly there was more intellectual challenge, but the test period in R&D showed the same methods, just a mildly different protocol.  Still lacked any implementation of undergraduate science training.  I left that job on good terms, but still, I left it.

This suggests something of a spoiled child perspective in an adult's body.  You don't want to work for a job.

On the contrary.  I worked hard in college and in law school.  I worked hard at every significant job I've ever had.  I think of it as a mutual situation:  the employer offers something, I offer something, we find a middle ground where what I offer is something the employer can make use of, and what the employer offers keeps me engaged and wanting to contribute.

That's awfully idealistic.

So we're back to the spoiled child thing, eh?


The world's corruptions are something I should revel in?  Enjoy?  Take advantage of?


That sounds cynical to me.  Mercenary.  And it explains why people cut corners, cheat, and lie to their co-workers or their employees.

You could always just give up.  Go live off the land.

Is that a joke?  A provocation?  I'm supposed to enjoy the so-called modern era's whacked out sense of topical propriety and actual duplicity?  I'm supposed to lie on my resume, lie about my life, lie about my expertise like everyone else does?  Have you ever noticed how people who get famous as "experts" in journalism don't know much at all about their subjects?  How come I can't get a gig paying 6 figures for fraud?

It may be the idealism is standing in the way.

So I should be a whore?

Well, didn't you used to work as a lawyer?


And isn't that prostitution of a sort?

You've never practiced law, have you?

No, why is that relevant?

Because then you'd see that despite public stereotypes, it's very possible to work as a lawyer who doesn't end up lying about himself, his skills, his knowledge, his client's agenda, his witnesses' credibility.  I was one of those lawyers, as were the people I worked with and for.

So why did you leave that job?

Because it was in a place --a part of the country, I mean-- where everyone's a Type A+++ overdriven asshole who competes with everyone on every little trivial detail of waking life.  Because I saw myself at age 45 looking like 60 feeling like 75.  Heart attack or stroke at age 50.  Because I rarely had time to ride my bike or go for a run and I wrote off skiing for an entire decade.  Because I had no time to date, even though women do like a lawyer... or at least the idea of having a slice of the lawyer's income and prestige.

That's very cynical.  It must be hard getting dates with that attitude.

Wasn't, actually.  It wasn't getting dates that was tough.  It was keeping the relationship going when it seemed like material opportunity was the only thing sought.

Don't you think our society puts women in that bind?

That's not what I saw growing up as the child of a single-parent family whose single parent was a woman.  My mother got down to business and supported herself and me and my brother.  She didn't go looking for a sugar daddy to coddle and cosset the three of us.

Your mother is a rare woman.  Most women do not follow that path.

Maybe in polite society.  I grew up redneck.

I see.

Do you?

Well, I'm trying to.

Are you?

I am.  But cross-examining me that way makes it tough.

Not enough emphasis on how my words make you feel, eh?

Something like that.  You could stand to work on that a bit.

But I've met women who didn't have any problem with my factual tendencies or reality-grounding instead of being one of those twits who flops and flips his stated positions based on the ...what did you say?  feelings?  of whomever is within earshot.  Was I lucky enough to find mutants?


So I don't understand women, they don't understand me, where are we now?

We haven't gone anywhere.  You're still in your chair, I'm still in mine.

Funny.  In a way.  But not really helpful.

What would be helpful?

A conversation that doesn't go in circles.


Luddites and germophobes, the above is a slightly fictionalized version of "mental health counseling" as yours truly has experienced it.  The fictionalizing is honestly very slight, consisting mostly of paraphrasings in lieu of direct accurate word-for-word recall.

If you spend $100-200 for a 1-hour session, you should get a bit more useful feedback -- shouldn't you?

When I've worked as a lawyer talking about a new matter with a client, I haven't billed for time spent not discussing the matter while still sharing conversation.  Even if the conversation began on the clock, detours are not billed.

This type of integrity is something Chuck says is my downfall.  You've seen him mention it before, I'm sure.  We'll see him comment about it below, I'm equally positive.


One of the problems encountered in seeking work in 2016 is that people 35 or younger grew up on the Artificial Economy and they think that this artifice is reality.  They are so terrified of things not "progressing" that they think a tradition-based line of work -- law -- is relevant only to the extent it has existed, and as it has been practiced, in the Digital Era.

If you practiced law when people had paper files and signed documents with ink pens rather than a digital signature or click, you can't possibly know The New Reality.  Everything has changed; nothing that came before was useful, nor will it ever be useful again in any future setting.


It's astounding to me that employers could recognize your accomplishments in completing law school with a decent GPA, passing a bar exam, and working for a reputable law firm, but would insist that you lack the intellectual chops to get up to speed on The New Reality.

This New Reality is a blip, a nothing in history, and to give it such gravitas is an act of mere faith.

It's like religious bigotry:  not following the religion of progress, not believing that The New Reality is our definite future, and thinking that anything prior to the 21st Century is now rubbish in the big landfill of quaint, gladly forgotten history.

They're afraid of being seen as Naked Emperors, and the system they work in shares that fear but on a collective level.


You may not be inclined to believe this, but I'm sure that 10 years from now it will be an accepted fact of the era:  the reason why people gravitated to Sanders and Trump during the past year is a sneaking, growing suspicion that The New Reality is bogus and that the Naked Emperors really don't have any clothes on.

Meanwhile, good luck to you if you're trying to find a job and you're not in data analytics, internet marketing, crowdsource funding, or other ephemera.

-- Chet Redweld, the most underused person you'll ever meet, in person or online.

hear it, get it, get after it!

Smart analysis, but her lack of a graduate parchment and faculty appointment will cause cries of BULLSHIT SELF-HATING MISOGYNIST.

-- Paul Behrer, admirer of smart, courageous and outspoken women everywhere.