Friday, April 18, 2014


Breakfast with Curtis is the best movie I've seen in at least 10 years, maybe 15, maybe 20. 

Hopefully my reality-bleeding client will watch it and maybe it will nudge him to change his aim, artistically speaking.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

slack hacker cracker in hate mode

As an electronic medium fantasist/pretender, I play video games a lot.  But when I say "games" in the plural, I mean that I spend many hours playing one of a handful of games I enjoy.

Sometimes I rent a game if the online hype train is traveling at maglev bullet speed.  Long ago (PS 2 era) I bought a game based on the hype and was pissed at the wasted money.  That game was Shadow of the Colossus.  Glacial pace, stupid story, arcane/weird/non-intuitive combat mechanics.

Shadow of the Colossus was rated extremely highly.  Example here, be sure to read the whole review and its bloat of praise.  To get the flip side of etherworld's views on the game, go here.


9 years later, the overhype has saturated Dark Souls II.  And nine years later, I got gulled into thinking the hype was not over-ripe.  But this time I didn't buy, I learned that lesson -- at least.

I rented the game on Sunday, and have played it for around 7-8 hrs by now.  Obviously I'm an idiot, because I haven't advanced at all in that time.

It's not only the glacial pace and stupid story that suck.  There's also the problem of button-mashing-as-expertise that galls me.  Absurd button combos are required to do the simplest things.  The designers should pay attention to Skate, or MX vs ATV, or Pure for something that lets a game player use the intiuitive movement analogy enabled by more joystick, less button.  But then the button-mashing-experts would pee and shit their pants after whining spoiled-baby style about how the essential "skills" required for button-mashing-expertise have been ignored.


So sad.  But to me, button-mashing-expertise is exactly like multiple-choice tests and other situations where your memory, rather than your understanding, is being examined.  It's a lot like reading Jack Crow and his facticitous recitation of historical references, while the context and meaning are completely lost because he only has memory and cut-and-paste as his weapons.  Instead of telling you something useful, you get trivial historical facts designed to "impress" you.  Showboating bullshit, eh?

The Department of Defense and its lust for remote-controlled weaponry probably is loving the button-mashing expertise generated by the Youth of Today playing the shit out of games like Dark Souls II.  If I were General Campbell Z. Gloatwell of the US Defense Forces, I'd be mining the gamer populace for my future keyboard warriors.

But I'm not that guy.

I put on my Dunce Cap and return Dark Souls II to the rental store, and return to my usual diversions.  I don't have time to memorize X+RB+LT+Y+right stick forward, etc., and I definitely don't have the interest in that.  I'd rather memorize "times tables" for a 2d grade math test.

--Hal Caidagh, dunced up like the class clown.

oh, the problems of the privileged -- they haunt my waking hours

Yeah, I hear you... Nelson/Castlegar doesn't have many of those options. Lots of steep, long, dusty fireroad climbs around here. That's why shuttling is still so prevalent. Rossland is better in this regard.

So unless the climb is tasty singletrack, you won't ride it and will shuttle it? And that's the climb's fault or the town/location's fault, and not your laziness at work?


Canadians are so entitled and so "progressive," eh?

--Hal Caidagh, laughing at the spoiled yuppies of Vancouver

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

your govt hard at work

In the interest of advancing the citizenry's employment statistics, my state government has a job service which, ostensibly, tries to help people find work.  You can give them your resume/CV and take a typing test and a computer literacy test, and they will try to place you after interviewing you to learn your work interests. 

In the past they helped me find a job at $10/hr for which any person not of my background (experience, education, typing skills and computer literacy) could have qualified. 

So they have that going for them.

Today I received one of their email notices regarding a position.  I quote here the relevant part:

The link below is to a job opening for a(n) Visiting Assistant Professor, Economics In (town name omitted).
This job appears to match your interests, skills and abilities.

Nowhere in my background do I have any expressed interests, skills or abilities in teaching or otherwise rendering the subject of Economics.  I never mentioned Economics in my profile-building interviews with job service personnel.

--Hal Caidagh, questioning the relevance of annual state tithing

Sunday, April 13, 2014

when failure is success

Personality Diagnostics Inc.
612-B Diffdex Way
Labbkote, Neuwestia 50891

April 6, 2014

Chester B. Redweld, Esq.
5291 Scheperdeis Court
McBoulder, Neuwestia 50189

RE:  Narcissism Assessment -- Harold Caidagh

Dear Mr. Redweld:

We thank you for using our services in the diagnosis of your client, Harold Caidagh, on the narcissism disorder spectrum.  Mr Caidagh visited our offices on April 2, 2014, at which time we interviewed him and gathered data for our assessment.  Our findings are set forth below.

Testing Method

Initially we interviewed Mr Caidagh to get an appraisal, in his own words, of his background and his views toward himself and others. We found Mr Caidagh to be a calm, self-deprecating man of above-average intelligence and extreme modesty.

When we discussed matters oriented toward humor and its use as a coping mechanism for struggles in life, we found Mr Caidagh to be strongly aligned toward use of humor as a successful coping strategy and further, we found him to fit squarely within what most comedians and students of comedy would call "dark" humor.  He takes enjoyment from such comic constructs as absurdity, caricature, lampooning, satire, sarcasm, irony.  He seems to take especial delight in the employment of words, phrases and notions that people find culturally forbidden.  These aspects of the humor facet of his personality are directly in line with his above-average intelligence, and suggest he is gifted in the imagination realm.

After discussing Mr Caidagh's background and humor orientation, we talked about his social identity and where he "fits in" with present American and Neuwestia society.  Mr Caidagh is aware of his status as a bit of a loner, and he discussed the point that on numerous occasions throughout his life, people have accused him of being arrogant and narcissistic.  It would appear that his accusers have conflated his social aloofness and a status of arrogant narcissism being the cause of that aloofness.  However, our assessment of Mr Caidagh suggests that his social isolation is more a result of his use of humor for coping, and his sense of humor being one that only a very small minority of Americans seem to share, let alone enjoy.  In other words, he does not choose to be a loner, but rather ends up as one because not many others can identify with his views.

We asked Mr Caidagh about his social isolation and whether that disturbs him, causes him anxiety, or otherwise generates a negative attitude toward the society in which he lives.  We found him surprisingly candid on this subject.  He does not harbor antisocial views, but rather expresses surprise that others do not understand the world as he does.  It would seem that he is quite unaware of his relative intellectual gifts, and so he remains puzzled as to how those gifts separate him from most people.  Simply put, he tends to assume that most other people actually are smarter and more intellectually gifted than he is, and thus he is amused that his intellectual superiors do things which he, himself, finds unwise.

We did notice a general relative deficiency in Mr Caidagh's understanding of, and familiarity with, the world of human emotions.  To sum it up rather simply, where most humans employ emotions to guide their interactions with the world, Mr Caidagh uses logic.  He expresses surprise at the idea of, and result from, another using emotion where he would use logic.

Writing Samples

You provided us with writing samples by directing our attention toward the blog found at and the posts Mr Caidagh authored on and after October 26, 2013.

Our assessment of the writing samples was an enjoyable task.  We rarely get to read such creativity.  When viewed on the grounding of his actual personality (as described above), we see Mr Caidagh's writings as one man's successful negotiation of life's little anxieties through the vehicle of writing from a darkly comic perspective.  Mr Caidagh's satirical touch may not be enjoyed by many others, and likely is misunderstood by many who encounter it, but we found it a refreshing criticism of the extreme narcissism and general immaturity that are so prevalent in American society today. 

Our pool of readers included people who had interviewed Mr Caidagh and/or had read the results of that interview, along with people who only got their first exposure to him via the blog writings.  Some of our readers were sensitive about the provocative nature of Mr Caidagh's entries, but none of those people had interviewed Mr Caidagh nor read the interview transcript.  All who were so sensitized were able to reconcile those sensitivities after familiarizing themselves with Mr Caidagh's actual background and person.

In other words, once put into context, Mr Caidagh's writings were seen by all as written with a positive light, rather than a negative one.

Narcissistic Personality Inventory

We next tested Mr Caidagh using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988), a 40-question survey designed to assess degrees of unhealthy, asocial narcissism.  Using the NPI, we found the following.

Mr Caidagh scored 3 out of 40.  For comparison, here are scores for 3 segments of American society.

US university undergraduates -- 15.6
US adults -- 15.3
US celebrities -- 17.8

We also found that Mr Caidagh tested at the minimum levels (in other words, non-existent) for these individual narcissistic traits:


and we found that Mr Caidagh's 3 affirmative questions revealed low levels of the following individual narcissistic traits:

Self-Sufficiency (2 questions)
Authority (1 question)

We should clarify that these 3 affirmatives are consistent with his social outcast/loner perspective and, on the whole of that background, do not indicate narcissism of any measurable degree/quantity.


Harold Caidagh shows no signs of an unhealthy narcissism, regardless of whether you test him individually, or compare his tested results against the average American citizen.  Further, when compared against average Americans, Mr Caidagh is strongly under the narcissism quotient.  It could be stated fairly that as compared to his fellow Americans, Mr Caidagh actually is narcissism-deficient.

We thank you for the privilege of serving you.  Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions, or if we may be of further use to you.

Very truly yours,

Personality Diagnostics Inc.

Holden F. Tazewell, PhD

Thursday, April 10, 2014

the impeccable

After hours of thoroughgoing, microparsing research done by a Team of Well Qualified Experts, I'm here to report their findings.

TWQE has discerned the identity of "Tarzie."  Please go here.

We now have the fullest context when reading our heroic journalist's scribblings.  Yes, you're welcome.

--Hal Caidagh, juking his way past dumbass Redweld's defenses again.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

go eat a bag of pus-covered dildos

Sven Martin's photographs speak of a life being lived to the fullest; one most of us could only dream of.
That's from the photo-buzz site VitalMTB, where a bunch of adult men whose brain (and thus, sense of wisdom & humor) is stuck in 7th grade, making them think you're a "hater" if you actually dare to expect them to write to an adult-level standard of literacy or comedy.

Shit, it seems like a Clay Porter fluff job.  You remember Clay?  He's the one whose gay sensibilities ruin annual UCI DH race filming products by emphasizing the male racers' runway model or American Pop Culture Idol viability, and ignoring the racers' skills as shown on-track.

So let's set the record straight.

Sven Martin's life is that of a spoiled South African trustfunder whose family wealth arose from exploiting die schwarzer in an apartheid nation.


The best bullshit you can find regarding my two sports, MTB and skiing, is done by trustafarians who pretend they are salt-of-the-earth but whose life of privilege betrays that pretense and makes it phony as shit.

I love how rich kid Sven can't write or spell worth a shit, but he's a "journalist."

See. I told you. Trustafarians get the gold, and those with the real skills, they earn the privilege of paying gold to the trustafarians.

Everyone's happy, right?


Those with the least skill/talent but the most "popularity"/connections really do deserve to be upheld as exemplars.

--Hal Caidagh, once again dodging the Redweld defense.  

Monday, April 7, 2014

sock puppets always knew -- forever

Hah hah hah hah.  Chris Floyd now tries to sell us on the "fact" that he -- like Tarzie and every other sock puppet "public intellectual pundit" who doesn't actually exist in meatspace -- has always been skeptical of Greenwald.

All these "pundits" who sucked Greenwald's cock and put rings of heroic holly around Greenwald's oversized cranium, they're now pretending they're doubtful.

Have they told us why their minds changed?

How their minds changed?

No.  That would require admission of wrongness, which requires sincerity and honesty, which requires respect for the audience, which also requires humility and a willingness to accept and admit the wrongness of prior statements/positions.

Fuck, even Floyd uses a fucking Congresscritter way of saying he was wrong.  He uses the passive-aggressive 3d personizing of himself and his wrongness.  Like with Nixon, "mistakes were made."

Reading the thread on the newest Floyd entry is almost funny.  On the past 2 posts he pasted on his FRONTPAGE!, none of the Floydfan Fucktards were posting -- it was all Tarzieblog regulars posting at Floydville.  Where were John Kelley, Grandma Sheila, Phylter, Christ Stahnke, etc?  Apparently on vacation.  Instead we got Tarzie, Jeff Nguyen and Walter Glass along with an obvious character from The Ellensburg-Ellers-Ellis Files.  For 100 comments.  See, I told you when Tarzie arrives with his coterie of costumed clowns, the comment thread count bumps from 15 to 100!

If you ever needed a bigger bag of bullshit, you'd have to go to wherever the little kids hang out to brag about what they're going to do with their allowance when Dad gives them a big raise.

Good god.  All we need now is The Crowbar to set the record straight with his cut-and-paste facticity pretending at deep knowledge.  Come on Crowbar, quit faking cancer and bring us that bullshit designed to "prove" you have an eidetic memory like Grandpa Simpson Chomsky.

You'll notice they're still only talking about Greenwald's haircut, manicure, and sartorial aesthetic.

Good job, poodle-boys.  Protect Gay Glenn's income stream!


Here's a "newbie" (new handle attributed by the same author who writes "Tarzie" and "Arthur Silber," you can tell by the Fancy Gay Man choices of modifiers -- FABULOUS!) named "Carolyn C", the new handle used to hide-behind.  So clever you are, bloody-anus-Tarzie!

Calliman's initial point was valid; Greenwald and Floyd/Silber have radically different beliefs. Greenwald’s focus is civil liberties, and his view is that the role of government is primarily limited to ensuring free speech, privacy, and due process. If heis a radical, it is on these issues alone. He does not make a critique of property rights as a generator of economic inequality and has little interest in aligning with those who do.

You fucking kook.

You don't know what someone else's beliefs are.  Only the believer knows his/her beliefs.  You're not inside the person's brain (?mind?).

Greenwald doesn't focus on "civil rights" and never has.  I would defy you to show me a coherent and jurisprudentially solid analysis from Cocksucking Buttfucking Glenn on "civil rights".  He's been writing publicly for 9 years.  That's a lot of territory, Carolyn... err, ahhh... Tarzie.  Show me something.

You can see how all this pans out in Greenwald’s support for the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. If the plutocracy is now free to use its vast wealth to (further) corrupt the political process, well that’s a small price to pay for an oligarch’s freedom to use his money, his “private property,” to influence elections, because somehow this represents his sacrosanct free speech. He seems to have no beef with great wealth and its power to corrupt what is left of democracy throughout the world, militarily or through the IMF. This is why he can proclaim disinterest in the activities of his employer, Pierre Omidyar, a neoliberal oligarch who actively supports empire and oppression in the pursuit of profit.

Oh great.  Now "Carolyn" is reframing the relevance of Citizens United for us all.  Again, tell me where and how "Carolyn" knows the innermost beliefs of ANYONE but herself (Tarzie's self). 

If CocksuckerButtfucker Glenn were such a great lawyer, he'd know Citizens United is fluff because of Buckley v Valeo.  And since this blog, under several prior authors' hands, has explained the Buckley impact and since CocksuckerButtfucker Glenn has been reading this blog since its inception, he's had ample opportunity to remind himself of that which he forgot immediately after he took his Con Law exam regarding the boat-anchor nature of Buckley.

But "Carolyn" (Tarzie) isn't finished here.  Now "she" has to lionize Chomsky, the doddering old Mossad asset.

Floyd and Silber, I believe, are more in the mold of lefties like Noam Chomsky. Chomsky rages about billionaire capitalists who rule the US and see the world as ripe for their neoliberal economic exploitation. Chomsky calls them “plutocrats.” He quotes from a brochure put out by Citigroup for its investors which proclaims, “The World is dividing into two blocs—the Plutonomy and the rest.”

“Plutonomy refers to the rich…As for the rest, we set them adrift. We don’t really care about them. We don’t really need them…These days they’re sometimes called the ‘precariat’—people who live a precarious existence at the periphery of society…”

This reads not like someone first-timing at Floyds as "Carolyn," but rather it reads like someone who is an old hand at Simulated Beavers and their Dam-Building.  Chomsky chomsky chomsky hero hero hero hero hero hero genius-for-the-ages blah blah blah blah.  It reads like Tarzie's non-criticism of Chomsky, which parallels Tarzie's non-criticism of Greenwald.  Appear to criticize the man and his integrity, but actually lament over the poor clothing choices and unfortunate haircut and sadly deficient manicure.

It's the writing of someone who worships another because he/she him/herself is TOO FUCKING STUPID to have an independent idea, thought, position on ANYTHING and so we must have an "expert" to divine the proper position for us to adopt!

Glenn Greenwald dowses for new Acceptable Views

HINT:  Chomsky doesn't "hate" or "despise" or "abhor" or even mildly get annoyed by these "plutocrats."  Fuckin' idiocy there.  He's served them his entire career, gladly, at MIT.  Chomsky is doing the Chris Hedges -- pretending at radicalism for his "criticism" which isn't criticizing anything or anyone in particular.  Hey, let me attack a TV commercial.  It was made by "plutocrats" so when I attack the language used on a TV commercial, I am "criticizing power structures" -- right?

Fuck.  Simulated Beavers.

Rather incredibly, Greenwald has been critical of Chomsky for not “strategizing” to maximize his impact, presumably as he himself has, by seeking ever more media coverage and by signing on with Omidyar. Never mind that for many on the left, Chomsky has let down the struggle by becoming a fussy and judgmental gatekeeper, as when he excoriated Aaron Schwartz for his heroic actions, and when he ridicules the 911 Truth movement, with its over 2,000 credentialed engineer and architect supporters, as idiots--perhaps in an effort to court mainstream acceptance and the grain of influence which that provides him. Perhaps even Chomsky realizes that sometimes there is too high a price to pay for this illusory “influence.” Even he has so far avoided making common cause with an economic vampire like Omidyar.

Nice one, Tarzie. You stole my vampiric metaphor already when you talked about "heat vampires," and now you're on another one.

Stop rehabilitating Chomsky and Greenwald, you little faggot. Start telling the truth. For once.

Fuck, you homos are such poofty deceivers, expert at deluding yourselves and LOVING the lies you tell to your "fans."

I guess this is how gay men entertain themselves. How fucked up is that?  Clearly gays are "just like you and me" except for their sexuality.  Right?

Fucking ass pirates.

-- Hal Caidagh, posting before stupid Redweld gets to the office

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Redweld's out to lunch

That means I get to play.

First, please revisit this old post: stuff pasty white non-athletes LOVE

And Second, for the great lunchtime helping of real irony, see this: NSMB writer refuses to see himself objectively.

That, my friends, is irony. Notice the absence of PBR, moustache, girljeans, trucker caps, Ricky Gervais, or Steve Carell.

--Hal Caidagh, laughing mid-sandwich.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

this is the AWEsomerestest

It's kinda easy to fire off posts despite Redweld having control over the blog and its content.  All I have to do is call him on the phone and then ask him questions that require explanations rather than short answers, and while he's explaining, I post a new item.



Now and then I run across something at random and can't leave it where I found it.  Today's great find is a perfect image-metaphor for many places I've visisted, all of which can be summed up this way:

You may comment here, but only if your comment agrees with what the Insider Majority believes and says in their own comments.  If your comments question the Insider Majority View, two things are guaranteed to happen.  First we dogpile on you, calling you troll etc.  Second we ban you, after deleting your comments.  We do this because we are leftists who care about civil rights, especially free speech -- and your comments threaten those civil rights.

In case you were wondering: yes, I have a list of places where that has happened to me; no, there is no mere coincidence between this post and the one immediately before it. Here are the sites where, according to this blog's internal notes (blogwriter journal, not published here), one or more of this blog's past authors has been dogpiled and then deleted and then banished, for doubting the Insider Majority View at that site:

Chris Floyd -- Empire Burlesque
Glenn Greenwald -- Unclaimed Territory
Glenn Greenwald's page at
Glenn Greenwald's page at GuardianUK
Michael J. Smith -- SMBIVA
Jeff Popovich -- BLCKDGRD
Jack Crow -- The Crow's Eye
Information Clearinghouse
Daily Kos
Huffington Post
Democratic Underground
Moon of Alabama
Whiskey Bar
Open Left

Ironically (literal irony, not 21st Century hipster "irony" that lacks irony), each of these sites is or was presenting itself as a bastion of leftist or leftist-ish or progressive views which emphasize support for minority views, tenderness toward socially invisible people, tolerance toward non-mainstream views.

--Hal Caidagh, posting while distracting Redweld with a series of vague questions.

self, meet cannibal; cannibal, meet self.

There.  Now you may continue in the consumption of your own corpus.


A new day brings a new opportunity to laugh at shock-value humor, guffaw at another's innocent self-embarrassment, chuckle at weak and failing tries toward amusement.

Got some breaking news here, kiddies!  Gather 'round!

Rich Arthur Chris Kastelein Floyd Silber Tarzie (it's getting tougher each day to sort out the identities) leaps out of the box on The Day After April Fool's with a nope, won't go there speech indicating mild perturbation with Our Little Self-Promotion Wizard, Glenn Greenwald's "handling of the NSA documents."

Notice the gambit here, you should.

It convinces you of several things.

First, that Greenwald has a bunch of top-secret NSA documents.  But how are we supposed to verify that this concept even has a whiff of truth?  The alleged proof of document possession thus far is Greenwald's word on the matter.  Since he doesn't really have a track record of honesty, I'm not confident that he has anything.  It's quite likely that the whole game of focusing on Edward Snowden's "heroism" is a way to distract from the fact that Greenwald has nothing, or if he has something, then that something is useless.  (As in, reveals nothing of moment nor of novelty.)

Second, as I just mentioned, Floyd is pumping the notion that Greenwald not only has NSA documents, but also, they are VERY important documents, and unless Greenwald hurries up and reveals all of their contents, certain progressives --those who have, for inexplicable reasons, not become members of the Greenwald Is God cult-- are going to wonder whether they can continue to sleep soundly at night because of the Great Mystery of the Snowden Document Trove.


Yes, as Tarzie has tried to tell his/her/its readers for 8 essays now, the most crucial matter is whether Glenn Greenwald should release the documents faster, because we all know the documents are vital to the citizenry's sound slumbers.  Tarzie told us so, and now Floyd tells us so too.  In a long-winded essay.  Which, like Tarzie, dresses-down Greenwald for wearing too much make-up when last on TV.

I'm glad these Experts are out there, helping me see reality.  I got a faint hint of untrustworthiness when I first encountered Glenn Greenwald's writing, but clearly it was because he's just a little too shrill sometimes, which flaw is indicated by his excessive use of makeup when on teevee.  The artificiality of the Snowden -- Our Greatest Whistleblower, ever! Forever! meme has nothing to do with Greenwald (or Snowden) being a fraud.  The experts never have questioned Greenwald's sincerity, have never examined his areas of expertise (so-called, or real -- take your pick), and don't really doubt his value as The Pundit of the Era Who Must Be Consulted.

Clearly, we should just slap Greenwald's hand lightly with an overcooked piece of capellini.

And praise Floyd-Tarzie-Silber-unifiedghostwriter for daring to speak of Greenwald's excess use of maquillage

Good job, "Chris."

--Hal Caidagh, posting before his lawyer starts the work day.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

we tried to chuckle, we tried to smile, we couldn't even muster a smirk

So Silber a fiction, Floyd a fiction, Tarzie a fiction, Glass a fiction, Popovich an unfunny regurgitator of fictions as "gags" because that makes up for his unpopularity 35 years ago in HS.  He can look down on you now, which makes up for being looked down on 35 years ago.

Have you ever seen a more pathetic thing?  I guess I have.  Pretty much from this stupid lawsuit by a bunch of poofs who think being gay makes them superior and entitles them to silence everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Hey that sounds like Floyd and Tarzie!  And Greenwald!

Hurry and send money to the income vehicle established by Rich Kastelein for more Zuckbucks.

--Hal Caidagh, shouting over his lawyer.

Friday, March 28, 2014

ex tempore

An obviously concerned reader writes in:

Dear Mr Redweld,

As a rhetorical mercenary who has recently suggested in a comment thread that he is not political, I wonder if you could comment on this comment that I read at --
How does Creationism conflict with biology, exactly?

When does Evolution factor into how organic chemistry work? Or medicine? It doesn't have any factor at all.

It's just an explanation of why we exist in the first place, as opposed to the universe just happening to appear due to random chance somehow...

Meanwhile AGW threatens to cripple the economy of the world, if believers have their way.

I do not know your views on Creationism, religion, or AGW. I am simply asking you to tell me whether this comment is soundly reasoned, in your view.


Veriya N'Ruliple


Dear VN'R:

The first sentence is a good question in the context of the thread above it, where most of the comments attack Creationism from a conclusive basis where they assume that Creationism is not science. The field of science literally is the field of knowledge. The academic discipline is a bit narrower and generally tends toward the subjects of biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics. Does Creationism belong among those 4 sub-disciplines? The question posed examines the conclusion's viability. If it's viable then nothing is lost and more explanation is gained. If it's not viable we've gained both the explanation and the more well-reasoned elimination of the concept from the academic world of science. It's a fair question. A person whose stance is well-grounded should feel no threat in having to answer it.

The second sentence, or rather pair of rhetorical questions and then a conclusion, really only requires examining the conclusion. Is it true? I'm not an expert on evolution, but I seem to recall having evolutionary thoughts related to organic chemistry when studying comparative anatomy and physiology. Comparative anatomy and physiology is a component of undergraduate biology and medicine studies alike, and also is found in some areas of M.S. and Ph.D. level studies in biology.

The third sentence seems in a mindless read to be a fair statement, but if you're paying attention you may notice it poses a false dichotomy through the phrase "as opposed to," which limits the reader's examination to only two options when there others.

The last sentence is the most interesting of all. Even if we grant the accuser's conclusion that AGW poses a global economic threat "if believers have their way," doesn't the global economy depend on a healthy oikos? And therefore shouldn't preserving the oikos be primary, else there is no way to build a system of commerce and exchange on it? It seems the accuser doesn't understand things deeper than the man-made commercial level, and should perhaps inform himself/herself on matters of biology.

Your humble correspondent,

Chet Redweld

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

exes and ohs, the end

part 1 here

part 2 here

part 3 here


PBH:  It's now 1:15pm and I'm resuming the diagnostic interview of Harold Caidagh at the Neuwestia State Mental Hospital.  Is everyone prepared?

HC:  I've been ready since before 1 pm, but I'm sure Lyspe had to swallow some semen during lunch, which put him out of mind for timeliness.  Can't those buttfucking poochies keep their cocks in their pants for one hour?

LSL:  OBJECTION!  My glorious sexuality, which obviously causes Caidagh great envy, it is not the focus of this interview nor our occasion for gathering here today.  Besides, it was my partner doing the swallowing, not me.  Stop oppressing gays, Caidagh.  You are such a bigot homophobe misogynist reactionary!  Why don't you just go play with your friends in the Tea Party and spend all your time worshiping Ron Paul and Sarah Palin?  So tacky.

CBR:  As usual, Lyspe is using this forum to try to build an indirect argument which supposedly will destroy my client's reputation, and is showboating with his sad cries of "objection."  Doctor, would you please resume the interview? 

LSL:  OBJECTION!  I OBJECT to Redweld's highly objectionable comments!  Plus he's ordering my expert around again, and moreover, he's prejudiced against gays.  HOMOPHOBE!

CBR:  Lyspe, how would you know my attitude about homosexuality and people who practice it for carnal pleasure?


CBR:  Is that some kind of hidden inside joke?

LSL:  OMIGOD!  LOL!  ROFL!  I think Redweld is jelly.

CBR:  Did you actually just scream "loll" and "roffel" as if they are words we should respect and use?


CBR:  Doctor, please resume the interview.  Lyspe can go practice his supposedly funny, observational alleged humor at some other time.  My client and I have more on our plates than practice sessions for Lyspe's strange stand-up un-comedy routine.

PBH:  Mister Caidagh, let's talk about your blog.

HC:  I don't have a blog.

PBH:  I mean the universal non-stick formula blog.

HC:  Okay.

PBH:  Your entries seemed to spend a lot of time being angry, and making fun of people.

HC:  What seems is not what is.  The whole concept of something "seeming" a certain way has nothing to do with what actually is happening.

PBH:  You were not making fun of people?

HC:  Oh I was.  I do that all the time. 

PBH:  Doesn't that make you an elitist?

HC:  Define elitist for me.

PBH:  One who thinks he is superior, and thus in a tiny minority of superior people.  One who insists everyone must be superior as he is.  One who looks down on others, and doesn't find commonality with others.

HC:  So -- you don't have a dictionary handy? 

PBH:  Excuse me please, but what does that mean?

LSL:  OBJECTION!  Caidagh the homophobic bigot reactionary misogynist is making fun of my expert and trying to undercut her self-assurance.

CBR:  I'm sure we've heard enough of your characterizations of my client, Lyspe. 

HC:  I don't care what Lyspe calls me or alleges to be my person, my perspective or my set of beliefs.  Lyspe doesn't know me and never has, so whatever he calls me is just made-up fiction that is serving some ulterior motive he harbors.


HC:  You're the most un-funny comedian there is, Lyspe. 


HC:  You are trying to convince yourself with those assertions, aren't you?


HC:  Keep telling yourself that.  Remember, if you say it, it has to be true.  You are the source of all wisdom and honesty.

CBR:  This is going nowhere.  Doctor, please -- you have 30 minutes to wrap up this interview.  Lyspe said it would take no more than 2 hours.  We've now been here for five hours and nothing substantive has been developed in your interview.  This is a complete waste of time.  Lyspe, I'm going to file a motion to disqualify Doctor Houle-Eaton and render inadmissible the substance of this interview. 

LSL:  OBJECTION!  You are being obnoxiously objectionably homophobic!  And misogynistic!  And reactionary!  And, worst of all, BORING!

PBH:  Mister Redweld, I apologize for this interview taking so long.  I'll try to wrap it up.

LSL:  OBJECTION!  This interview isn't over until I SAY IT'S OVER.

CBR:  Doctor, please -- continue.

PBH:  Mister Caidagh, are you a bigot?

HC:  About what?

PBH:  It's a simple question.  Are you a bigot?

HC:  About what?

PBH:  Yes or no.  Are you a bigot?

HC:  About what?

PBH:  Mister Caidagh, are you a reactionary?

HC:  About what?

PBH:  In general.  As an outlook.  Do you favor keeping things the same as they are now, regardless of how much progress you block with that perspective?

HC:  My perspective blocks progress?

PBH:  Yes.

HC:  How?

PBH:  Because you don't want things to change.

HC:  You mean kinda like how you don't want to accept that I'm not what your theories allege, because that would require you to change?

LSL:  OBJECTION!  Caidagh is not here to ask questions of my expert!

HC:  If she asks me a supposed question but her alleged question contains numerous assumptions which do not apply to me, I feel entitled to qualify what she is asking, if for no reason other than finding the truth.


HC:  Excuse me?


HC:  What?

CBR:  Doctor, please resume.

PBH:  Mister Caidagh, are you a misogynist?

HC:  Define misogynist for me.

PBH:  One who hates women.  One who doesn't respect women. 

HC:  This is funny.  So your theories assume that I hate and disrespect women, eh?

PBH:  Yes.  My forensic dissection of your blog posts indicates that you are a homophobic bigot reactionary misogynist.

HC:  And yet none of those important points is true.

PBH:  Only because I forgot to add one more qualifier -- you are a liar.

HC:  Really?  I'm a liar?  About what?

PBH:  When you say you're not a misogynist you're lying.  When you say you're not a homophobe you're lying.  When you say you're not a reactionary you're lying.  When you say you're not a bigot you're lying.

HC:  I see.  And how do you know this?  You are somehow able to read my mind and learn my innermost thoughts?

PBH:  Yes.  That's what my 3 degrees prove.  They prove I'm able to discern your most secret, embarrassing beliefs -- even the ones you're not aware of yourself.

HC:  Really?  I thought they proved only that you were able to pay for all the coursework necessary to satisfy an institution's recipe for degree issuance.

PBH:  Oh no.  I had to pass the courses, not just pay for them.

HC:  So there was a high failure rate at each institution that granted a degree to you, in the same fields in which you earned your degrees?

PBH:  I graduated in the top 25% of my class at every step of the way.

HC:  I didn't really expect you to answer honestly. 

PBH:  Mister Caidagh, I think we've established today that you are a bigot, a reactionary, a homophobe, and a misogynist -- and most of all, a manipulative liar who has definite anger management issues and quite possibly a streak of sociopathic impulsivity.

HC:  You sure do like to think things that aren't so.

PBH:  And I think we've established that your activity at universal non-stick formula was and is designed to produce sociopathic, homophobic, bigoted and reactionary results in Neuwestian society as well as the larger society of the USA, and therefore GRH's lawsuit will succeed.

HC:  I'm impressed by the power of your delusions.

PBH:  And lastly, I think this interview has established my professionalism, my competence, and my fairmindedness.

LSL:  Amen to that!

HC:  Walter Mitty.


CBR:  Well, this has been an interesting day.  Are you finished Doctor?

LSL:  OBJECTION!  Redweld is trying to force my expert to end the interview!

PBH:  Nearly finished.  In conclusion, it is my professional opinion that Harold Caidagh is a sociopathic misogynist bigot reactionary homophobe who is a pathological liar, and it is my further professional opinion that universal non-stick formula is the nerve center of all misogyny, homophobia, mendacity, reactionary thought, bigotry and sociopathic destruction of all good civility and sophistication found in modern society.

HC:  That's a swell speech.  Terrific use of projection!


CBR:  So we're finished now?

PBH:  This is Doctor Priscilla Houle-Eaton and it is now 1:45 PM and I am concluding the diagnostic interview of the clearly sociopathic homophobe Harold Caidagh.  I hope the transcript of this interview promotes justice and protects oppressed gays everywhere.

HC:  It's a shame Prissy couldn't come up with a single question that was useful, and I guess that's why she is speechifying now.


CBR:  That's it.  Stenographer, please close the transcript now.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

exes and ohs, part 3

part 1 here

part 2 here


PBH:  Can we resume the interview?

HC:  Sure.  What do you want to talk about?

PBH:  I'd like to know what sources you use for current events in the USA.

HC:  How do you want to define current events?

PBH:  Whatever you watch, read or listen to on a regular basis.

HC:  For what subjects?

PBH:  Political subjects.  Social issues.  Economic concerns.

HC:  I'm not sure I follow you.

PBH:  For example.  Maybe you subscribe to The New York Times, or The Economist.  Or maybe you visit Huffington Post.  Or you listen to NPR.

HC:  Does this imply some set of standards?  Do those sources you listed qualify as some kinds of placeholders?

PBH:  I was thinking about the kinds of sources I use myself.

HC:  Gotcha.  Is it okay if I use other sources?

PBH:  As long as you list them.

HC:  Well, I talk to my friends.  See what they are talking about.  Who they listen to, what they read.

PBH:  And do you use the same sources as your friends?

HC:  There was a time when I did.  Sometimes I do now.  Not often.

PBH:  What does that mean?

HC:  Around 25 years ago, I used sources similar to what most of my friends use now.

PBH:  But you don't now.

HC:  Not really.

PBH:  And why is that?

HC:  With each source I reached a point where their bias was tangible and once I noticed that bias, I would get a bad vibe on further encounters with the source.  Like they were lecturing me.  Politely, but still telling me what's good and what's not good, through the slant and tone and tenor of their presentation.  Like they're saying, "these are the good sources and/or experts, the ones we're citing or using in our broadcast, and those other ones are baaaaaad."

PBH:  This was a problem?

HC:  The bias I suppose is inevitable in a partisan society like ours, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with something Team A says is good, or disagree with something that Team B says is good.  I kinda quit peer pressure games around 7th grade.  Maybe 6th.  I like to look at things from a will it work? perspective.  I find the tribalist view ultimately is doing -- what was that phrase from the late 80s era, the soft bigotry of low expectations? -- it's doing that.  It's settling for the A vs B without seeing that A vs B is not dealing with what happens to us peons down here at the XYZ end of things.

PBH:  What does that mean?

HC:  Unless you are working at the level of a US Senator or a cabinet head, or are one of the toybox donors for a fed politician's campaign, or are one of the well-connected businesses who benefit from porky pig slaughters in the congressional mess hall's killing room, it really doesn't matter whether A or B is the good team or the hero or the well-intended one or the more progressive one.  It really doesn't.  I don't know how someone can watch Bush/Cheney swap out, and Obama/Biden swap in, in the most seamless manner imaginable -- and actually with more effectiveness in the worst areas -- and still think it's about A vs B and your team being superior to their team.

PBH:  You don't think we have to stick with the system we have, warts and all?  You sound like an anarchist.  What was your response to the Boston Marathon bombing?

CBR:  Doctor, I just want to interrupt because that's actually three separate questions.  Can you ask them sequentially, as separate questions?

LSL:  OBJECTION!  You're ordering around my expert again!

CBR:  Lyspe, seriously.  That's enough.

PBH:  Mister Caidagh, do you think we should stick with the system we have?

HC:  You mean that whole change from within idea?  That system?

PBH:  Yes.  Using the system we have, and trying to improve it.

HC:  I don't see the point.  Well.  That's not exactly correct.  I guess if I think about it as an addiction, something you crave even though wanting and using it is bad for you, and deluding yourself on how it's going to work out in the end -- yeah, if we use that metaphor, it starts to make sense.  In fact it's a lot like heroin addiction.  Yep.

PBH:  You have been addicted to heroin?

HC:  No.

PBH:  So your metaphor isn't that good.  Is it?

HC:  Have you ever been a member of Congress?

PBH:  No.

HC:  Then you really shouldn't be talking about whether Team A vs Team B is working out well for you, should you?

PBH:  I don't understand.

HC:  Exactly.  The addict's dilemma.  I want this.  I want this outcome after doing this.  I want it to keep going on, forever and ever, like that.  Every buzz better than the last.  Every memory of a buzz making me want a bigger buzz next time.  Yeah.  It really is a solid metaphor.  I'm going with that.

PBH:  You seem to be off on a tangent here.

HC:  The pull of believing in the likely success of change from within politically, that's a lot like the pull of the ultimate buzz from whatever substance or act or psychodrama you're addicted to.

PBH:  You're really out there.

HC:  I'm sorry.   In about ten years, the people on your team will have accepted the truth I just shared, but as their history shows, that acceptance will be ten years too late.  But still, your team's supporters will say, "better late than never."  That, or the other variety, "the terrifying person on the other team really was horrible in his public statement on the issue, and we don't want that reality!"

PBH:  Mister Caidagh, I'm not really following your answers very well.

HC:  It's that metaphor block, isn't it?

PBH:  What does anything you said in the past 7 or 8 answers mean?  Are you a Republican, or are you a Democrat?

HC:  I choose C.  Or maybe D.  Possible I'd go with E, F, G or any other one.

PBH:  We're back to the rugged individualist again, aren't we?

HC:  No.  Maybe this time you'll believe me when I say the word rugged doesn't apply.

PBH:  Did you read Ayn Rand ever?

HC:  I did.  I read The Fountainhead and I read Atlas Shrugged.  In 1991, 92 era.

PBH:  Did they inspire you?

HC:  What?

PBH:  Did they make you want to do things differently?  Did they change your viewpoint?

HC:  They only changed my viewpoint on what each book was about, actually, as compared to what others had told me each was about.

PBH:  They didn't influence your political views?

HC:  No.  I can't imagine a political manifesto based on her views as implied through the two books I read.  She's kinda black-and-white about things.  I remember thinking she simplified a lot of things just to create an us-vs-them dynamic in her tales.  I wasn't impressed by her social theories about government vs business, and wasn't really convinced by the extent to which highly individualized people seem to succeed almost cartoonishly in her two books I read.  On the other hand I think she's correct about how bureaucracy and corruption make people prone to want an opt-out like Galt's Gulch -- if you accept her cartoonish world, that is.  I don't think a Galt's Gulch could arise in America today, even if you could put together a cluster of rich people interested in something like that.  I also don't think that businessmen, if left alone with their will-to-profit, are going to be wise about resource use and other social impacts and costs related to their operation.  So I don't really have a lot of respect for her view as a scheme.  I think she had some points right.  I think she got a lot wrong.  But I think she's correct about individualism being important, at least for people who are driven toward an indiosyncratic end.  I think what bugs people about her views is that a lot of humans just want to belong to one big happy family, and to those kinds of people, individuals are somehow threatening.

PBH:  So you're not a libertarian?

HC:  Huh?  I'm surprised someone's suggesting that category for me.  What's it based on?

PBH: Your blog entries seem like they are Republican but you say you're not following Democrat vs Republican, so that leaves only libertarian.

HC:  Really?  I have only 3 choices?

PBH:  I suppose there's also the Greens and the Communists and the Socialists on the Democrat side, and on the Republican side they have the God Squad too.  But those all seem like versions of Democrat and Republican.  Nobody ever votes for any of them.

HC:  So if you were the owner of a Baskin-Robbins franchise, and most of your customers bought either chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry, would you ditch all the other flavors because most didn't want them?

PBH:  That's different.  Baskin-Robbins created a business model around 32 flavors.  We don't have an American Democracy model built around a large number of party flavors.  What we really have is a model built around Democrat vs Republican.

HC:  That's my point.  Well, one of my points, at least.

PBH:  You're confusing me now.

HC:  Americans ignore every choice except Their Team against the Enemy Team.  And when doing this, they force themselves to choose between two versions of the same system.  And the versions are not really meaningfully different.  It would be like being at Baskin-Robbins and having a choice between a vanilla that is 60% vanilla 40% chocolate, and a chocolate that is 60% chocolate 40% vanilla.  And you could argue over whether that little 10% flavor split difference from 50-50 is actually meaningful.

PBH:  Now you're really confusing me.

HC:  To make it extra palatable, you'd have to call the 60% vanilla version something like UberVanilla, or The UnChocolate.

PBH:  I don't really like chocolate ice cream.  It seems so -- I don't know -- working class.

HC:  Most of those who choose the 60% vanilla version would agree with you.

PBH:  I'm very hungry.  Could we possibly break for lunch now?

HC:  Ask Lyspe if his poppers contact is ready to meet.

LSL:  OBJECTION!  I'm going to The Gringo Cantina for jalapeƱo poppers, and I object rather strenuously to Caidagh's continued efforts at impugning my habits and preferences.

CBR:  Let's take an hour for lunch.  It's obvious this is going to take all day, and possibly longer.  Lyspe, please try to be back here by 1 PM.