Tuesday, July 31, 2012

trained to kill -- protecting what? serving whom?

Obviously since the term "terrorist" implies a precise definition of a specific type of person or personal act, and can't possibly be interpreted strangely, broadly, wrongly, or distorted to mean whatever the in-power labeller wants it to mean,

obviously since that's the case,

we should have no worries about the Backbone of America being pressed into police service domestically or abroad.

Thank uber-deus, I now feel safe and secure in my national identity, which is sure to protect me against over-reaching LEOs.

And I don't mean lions, nor guys named leonardo or leonard or lenny or leon or leonidas.


his ears were never boxed

I suspect most Well Known & Very Admired Bloggers/Pundits don't really have much experience being on the wrong side of The Law, haven't spent any time being pursued by Johnny Law with his bubblegum beaming and klaxon shrieking, haven't been arrested on suspicion of real crime and given the jackboot's rough treatment of face ground into pavement, WWF knee-drop on the back of the "unsub", torture maven's twisting of the arm as if to undo the shoulder joint, etc.

Being arrested in a very peaceful manner, as a "protester" in a staged police/co-opted protester drama -- that doesn't count.  The cops there aren't adversarial.  They're cooperative, while maintaining their authoritative bearing for the camera or the onlooker.

Thus, the "arrest" of that poseur Chris Hedges along with Cornel West at one of the Occupy: stage presentations -- that wouldn't count.

Wouldn't come close to counting.

Of course, you can see this unfamiliarity with The Criminal Side on display in any of the Well Known & Very Admired Bloggers/Pundits essays.  There is always an implied sentiment that The Government (and its agents The Courts and The Police) are behaving in a socially beneficial, ethically pure and morally upright manner, and those people who go by various derogatory words or phrases of varying pretentiousness (suspect, perpetrator, "unsub," "person of interest") -- they are getting what they deserve.

There are subtler ways of betraying one's Government-Must-Not-Be-Criticized underpinnings.  Pretending to see a bogus charade in the Repub vs Dem circus, but insisting on maintaining and protecting the system it produced -- that's one hint you'll see even among "dissidents."  They'll say the parties need to be reformed.  Or they'll argue for tinkering with third parties and their viability, using "runoff" voting or the like.  They're still expecting that the system is perfect, essentially -- but could use a new coat of paint, or new clothes, or shiny new rims.

To use my favorite metaphor, that's like putting a band-aid atop the chest of someone who's suffering a mortal hemorrhage in the thoracic cavity.

"There ye are, Mister Wellkind.  Good as new, right as rain!"

Yes.  Of course.  Because George Washington, the cherry tree, I cannot tell a lie, Abe Lincoln emancipated the slaves, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and the Islamic fundamentalists who hate our freedoms they attacked us on 9/11/2001.

Naturally.

It's funny that a nation which worships science and technology and hair-splitting pretentious academic self-promotion would be so eager to accept a nursery-school-level cartoon description of what this nation's federal government historically has done, whose interests it has been used to enrich, what people or businesses it has intentionally destroyed.

Did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor as a symbol of Japan vs USA for the Big Fight Ring In The Center Of The Tent?

What were the relations between Hawaii and Japan in the decades, centuries, millennia which preceded American fruit-growing business interests in Hawaiian large-scale agricultural prospects?

What evidence was there, prior to American military base installation on Hawaii, for any kind of paranoia about Japan wanting to take over nations such as the USA and destroy its people?

Any?

No.  I'm afraid there wasn't any.

Nonetheless, the heroic dissidents of today -- Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald, Eve's Myth to name a few who seem to be quoted regularly in These Toobz -- they're always writing and opining in a way that sanctifies the past doings of American government.  Even when Greenwald seems to be standing aghast wide-eyed surprised shocked horrified at a latest development, his slant and tone suggest that this malign bit of news is just a minor blemish on the skin which we'll get Terry from Make-Up to fix in the next commercial break, and if we could just be more aware of the potential for these little glitches to occur, maybe in 2,000 years or so the American people will wise up to what's going on and perhaps even vote outside the Donkephant Paradigm.

Yawn.  Ho-hum.  Another civil right lost.  Oh well.  Time to fly to Brazil for a weekend of sex!  Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I've got this sweet writing gig and all, and a bicontinental jetset romance, and a high profile on the internet and a book in process that confirms all the foregoing is perfect for me right now.  Sorry.  Life's short and I'm not wasting it in dangerous company!

Yes.  Of course, Glenn.  We understand.  The big thing here is your celebrity.  That subject you have used as your rocket to that galaxy, this notion of civil rights and governmental power abuse -- it's a nifty little vehicle, ain't it?  Got you some sweet fame and great pay.  And well, to be perfectly frank -- you'll just stay in Brazil one of these trips, after your bank account/investment portfolio hits that mark you've fixed for your Early Retirement.  None of this stuff happening here matters to you.  You're not even here, really.

Mr Hedges provides another problem.  Can you identify what Hedges' problem is, reader?



Friday, July 27, 2012

NOT reactionary!

From the pits at this weekend's UCI Elite Men's DH race in Val d'Isere (that's France to you effete poodles who go outside only to run from house to Prius, or Prius to office, or to the woods out behind your favorite gehbahr where random public sex is such a turn-on), racer Greg Minnaar shows he's not too gender-insecure to sport not just one, but many maxipads:


French national DH racing rules require racers to use body armor to protect their spine.  Most of the racers don't use body armor for the same reason people like Corey Robin ignore facts that hurt their ideological integrity -- because they're supremely confident in their abilities.

Unlike Corey Robin, racers at Minnaar's level actually possess top-flight levels of skill in their chosen line of work, so they don't really set themselves up for a pratfall by being so confident.

In fact, it's insulting to UCI Men's Elite DH racers to compare a hack like Corey Robin even against the least-talented member of the Men's Elite DH race field.

Sorry guys.

suh lawn

here's how the frilly blouse brigade picture OCL when they wank after reading one of his essays:

I'm just a gay, hip George Frederick Will.
Let's go away to my log cabin this weekend, girls!


incidentally that was found by googling "stupid fool," as was this Sexpot For A Stupid Hipster Generation:

I heard someone talk about this kind of ink on a reality TV show and figured
it would score me some hunky bros in flatbills.

you can just imagine the cattiness offered in commentary by Salon regulars, can't you?  what's that called when the shot is 100% net, no backboard or rim?

but it really doesn't matter what the fops and twisters think.  here's her man right here:


I don't know about no salon, bro, but I'd totally hit that shit.


and to round things back to OCL's fan club, here's two of his ...uh... un-bro's right here.

Oh yeah, thithtah!  We thtrait up gangthta!
We butht a cap in yo athhh fo yo faaaahn cookwayuh!


hep me nah

Guarantee to you, reader:

This is 100% pointless stream-of-consciousness, going from idea to idea as the connections carry me. Puke, cry, complain, laugh, or drop your dainty little Gucci bag full of cat shit before running home to another episode of Queer Eye on DVD. Or some combination of those things. Maybe even break out that hardy and hale put-down, "reactionary" or go for the double-bonus, "reactionary misogynist."

Treble points awarded for the most nasty comment using the phrase "rape culture" in a meaningful while ironically comic manner.

________________________________________________

PREFACE

From my grandfather's era, as presently defined on-line:
Definition of HEP

: hip

Examples of HEP

hep devotees of jazz were willing to brave any venue to hear him play

Origin of HEP

origin unknown
First Known Use: 1903

Related to HEP

Synonyms: cool [slang], def [slang], downtown, groovy, au courant, hip, in, mod, now, trendy, turned-on, with-it

Antonyms: out, uncool, unhip, untrendy
_________________________________________________


I haven't read anything this pretentious in a long time. For at least as long as it's been since The Crowbar wrote some bullshit distraction-piece where he compared modern happenings to some cultural rule of Abyssinia in 450BC and then blamed everything on the Abyssinian Reactionaries of that era. From which we're supposed to extrapolate that the problem in America presently is insufficient progressiveness. Yeah thanks Crowbar old buddy. You really got the situ sussed, you fucking genius of self-impression! *

(cough cough Excuse Me! cough cough)

But let's look more seriously at this pile of human shit called Phil Rockstroh's Latest Essay at ICH. And more specifically, let's examine how some have fondled and read the feces for meaning, and see what they've found.

One commenter seems to have a good nose for the pervasive aroma of evacuated RBCs and digestive byproducts:
What a pretentious article. Speaking common English is a much better way to reach the masses. "Bedizened". . . really? Mr. Rockstroh demeans those who think they are better than the rest of us because of their wealth while speaking in an elevated language that will turn off the average person. He, himself, shows that he thinks his level of education makes him better than the rest of us. He's a bit of a hypocrite, methinks.
That'd be Oaife333's comment.

Yeah who the fuck uses the term "bedizened" in a sentence when talking with other human beings, in person?

***********

We know that The Crowbar will use such pretentious pisspot words as "elide" when conversing or lecturing on These Toobz. We've all seen that shit.

Seriously, what the fuck is that? "Elide"?  Who the fuck talks like that?
I was with you there, Ochstradt -- until that nasty bit of elision. Very tacky, that. Quite reprehensible, very untoward, and I dare say it's deplorable in the extremest sense.
Fuckin' preppy stiff-pinky fingerbowls-and-3-different-spoons bullshit, that's what it is. From a douchenozzle who swears he grew up poor. Right.

***********

And equally as unconvincing when a "Phil Rockstroh" does it.

***********

Or when a cartoonist does it under one of the 6 handles he uses at his Haughty, Superior And Pretentious Leftists website, where he's so fucking afraid of losing face at a Capitol Hill cocktail party.
Oh no, Hildegarde. That certainly cannot be me. For one thing, I don't have a sense of humor that anyone values. For another, I don't have much of an imagination. And for a third, I've always thought it best to stay within the confines of the Democratic Party. For domestic tranquility at the very least.
Yes. Whatever you say, Owen Al Michael J. Smith Schumann Paine. We won't utter any more "insults" toward the febrile, pneumonic and vegetative near-corpse character you've created and labelled as "Owen Paine." Yes, we'll give that fictional fucker some Respectful Gravitas Saved For Your Elders Who Are Superior Geniuses. And we'll agree with a condescending smirk when "Al Schumann" chastises some scabrous dirt-eater for breaches of decorum. And for sure we'll quit making jokes about academic matters such as economics, labor relations, or "political science" since The Almighty Professor MJS remains tenured (in the __________ faculty at ____________ prestigious university) and shouldn't be defaced in any way by the peanut gallery's farts and belches.

But let's return to Phil Rockstroh.

Who would be in good company at that poseur's parade known as

Simeon Boris Vahknozsc, O.P.I.C.S.L. **

************

In counterpart to the mild lack of respect shown by Oaife333, The Good Ship Philip was saved from a near-capsize by the courageous Internet Commentary Coast Guard Commodore, Bill Duke:
Turning words into fine art....what a gift to humankind.
That's before the above quote from Oaife333. Here's what Commodore Duke said directly responding to the quoted comment from Oaife333. Look how pwoggishly pretentious Commodore Duke is:

Isn't it a pity that our culture and ability to appreciate words and their essence has degraded to a level at which we can no longer appreciate poetry and the rhythm and the beauty of a well-designed essay. Are we to dismiss his words because we want the convenience of single syllable simple language? Further, can we not appreciate his words just for the poetry? Who said he wants to reach the masses?
"Mr. Rockstroh demeans those who think they are better than the rest of us......? Do you know what you just wrote? And...because of their wealth?...Do you understand that some of the worlds greatest poets and writers were dirt poor?
How do you know what he thinks? He's a hypocrite because you haven't the intelligence to understand him?.....and again, do you understand what you just wrote?
One of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read.
Don't like poetry or intelligent essays? Don't read them. But do not 'demean" the writer because he does not write on your level.
How silly and selfish.

That's really the thing I wanted to write about here. That comment, and its full berth of overstuffed Assumption Containers.

Numero Uno:

Phil Rockstroh isn't writing anything artistic. Using big, rare, confusing words in an awkward and often nearly meaningless fashion isn't making art. It's like shitting on a canvas, then pissing on the shitty canvas, then puking on that shitty pissy canvas, then framing it, and calling it My Body, Series 3.41.  Asking price $1.25 million.

Numero Dos:

Asserting that some of the world's great verbal artists were poor doesn't mean Rockstroh's writing is artistically solid, creatively impressive, or anything like that.  The two concepts are completely unrelated.  Even if Rockstroh pretends at the same "poverty" that The Crowbar and Chris Hedges pretend to have suffered.

Numero Tres:

No, he's a hypocrite because he pretends to be writing to inform those who are being hurt by the things he complains about.  And yet he writes in a confusing, super-pretentious manner that really muddles the message.  I would dare say I surpass 99% of the American Populace in reading comprehension and vocabulary,*** yet I haven't ever read a Phil Rockstroh essay that was worth reading past the first sentence.  Most of them are mumbles and remind me of someone trying to talk with 15 marshmallows in his gob while playing Chubby Bunny.  And what's worse, the words being slurred and mumbled are too complicated and pretentious for the message they're supposed to carry.

Numero Quatro:

Finding Rockstroh's essay pretentious and contradicting its implied desire to talk with the people who are being harmed by 2012 cultural trends, that's not stupid or ridiculous.

Unless you are Phil Rockstroh, posting as Commodore Duke, to defend your own pretentious and empty essays.

Fuck, even The Crowbar has the good sense to bury his pen after multiple attempts at being highbrowed, encultured and "down with the people."

If you're a preppy fuck who doesn't really know how to write, you have only one choice if you pretend to offer yourself as a writer.

And that's to be pretentious with the 42 cent words you learned at Choate.

Fuck off, Commodore Duke.  Piss off, Phil Rockstroh.

And go kick in your own kid's head, Crowbar, so you'll know what "abortion" is really about.

...

Ooops.  Shit.  Almost forgot this.

Next time around, if I do this again, I'm gonna shoot holes in that 3-ring Kapshow called "Duwayne Josephsson" at Chris Floyd's blog.

________________________

* Presmuably because they didn't murder fetuses for that convenience of post-coital birth control. You never know at what moment after the fuck itself you may regret fucking unsheathed. You never know when testing of the placental fluid could reveal trisomy 21. You never know when you'll want to use some stem cells to play Deus Maximus in a genetics lab. Besides, it's always good to possess the authority to control the on/off switch over another human life. It gives one a strong sense of power! And it's really progressing humanity!

"Cheeky little sea-horse of a fetus! Doesn't even look human! Let's squash it like a bug!"


** Oasis of Progressive Intelligentsia Calling Selves Leftists.


*** According to the good people at Educational Testing Service in Princeton NJ.

donkey vs elephant, on a bike

This fine gentleman was racing on behalf of Rahm Emanuel and the Democratic Party.  His nearest rival was racing on behalf of those filthy, disgusting Evil Rethuglicans. 

To him, it was more than a bike race.  To him, this was about Life Itself -- which perspective should control?  Progressive?  Or Reactionary?

Sit down and take some deep breaths before hitting "Play."  This is disturbing to watch.



Personally, I would have thought that since everything is happening in a Foreign Language, thus everything being very exotic, then this should have been a 100% slam-the-door-shut Progressive Victory. Exotic, fancy, rare = progressive. Always.

Apparently, things didn't work out that way for Mr Fancypants.

And thus --

the tantrum.

Go on, little baby donkey. Let it out.

I'll help you people with a translation from the belgian.

"On this day, progress died and a noble donkey was killed."

Thursday, July 26, 2012

nice one, bro

The absolute pinnacle of hypocrisy is this:

"Progressives" like to ping "reactionaries" with accusations that "reactionaries" are "afraid of change" or "want to go backward." 

The implication is that "progressives" are all about moving us forward.

Yet when it comes to questions of what are the sources of problems for most Americans, and what to do about fixing those problems, these would-be-impellers-and-propellers-of-society want to pull back the reins, slam on the brakes, be cautious and prudent. 

"Those Occupy: kids are too extreme for me!  Radicals!  They want to disrupt society!"

"Yes, of course -- Obama has his flaws.  He's not perfect.  Don't let the desire for perfection be the enemy of the good.  A more aggressive candidate would not be electable."

"Sure, we need health care reform.  But we can't disrupt the massive profiteering allowed to MDs, hospitals, medical benefits plan providers, TPAs, insurance companies, medical device makers, pharmaceutical companies.  They are drivers of the economy!  What we need is a mandate forcing the impoverished to give even more money to those who already profiteer to massive reward!"

The "progressive" is all about a type of social "progress" that makes a glacier appear to travel at the speed of light.

Isn't that pretty much how the "progressive" suggests the "reactionary" sees the world?  As one busy fearing change?  As one who doesn't want to upset the existing state of things?

Why yes.

It is.

The label "reactionary" is best understood this way, people.

It is used by self-styled "progressives" to label and thereby socially exclude people who expose the fraudulence of the "progressive" stance.

"I'm superior to you, Mr Reactionary.  Because I'm a Progressive.  And because you're a Reactionary.  There isn't much else to say on the matter."

Reduced to their social, community-oriented essentials, the Progressive's views are simply those of a social climber. 

"Your manners are reprehensible, Mr Reactionary.  You are quite uncouth.  You are an abrasive, brusque and unrefined savage."

It's done in many ways. 

"Oh.  You don't eat Sushi.  I see."

"I'm sorry.  I can't be bothered to watch TV.  It's all so... coarse."  (meanwhile, texting:  "Watched full first season of Gossip Girl last night.  DISH!  spoon me!")

"No, I don't ever read anything written by a white male.  No white male can understand the oppression felt by a hairy jewish lesbian.  Cultural jew.  Yeah.  Fuck religion and its patriarchy."  (note: dresses and identifies as psychosexually male)

"I traded in my Audi.  It's such a reactionary thing, to drive a gasoline-guzzler.  I was getting only 14 mpg in my 1.6 mile (each way) daily commute.  So I bought a Segway.  But it's a hassle.  People won't get out of my way on the sidewalk and the buses won't pick up people more frequently so I have to weave through throngs of bus-riding... uh... people who are less fortunate than I am."

"I get so tired hearing from those crazy anarchist bomb-throwers.  They talk about wanting to reform the economy.  Why?  My portfolio is booming!  I own 5 rental structures, a summer vacation cottage, a chalet at the ski resort, and a time-share in Cozumel.  Reform the economy?  That's insane!"


pwog pride parade

Alas, Ochstradt turned out to be a reactionary.


You fools!  It was so obvious even a kid could see it!

I'm embarrassed.  I thought he was a radical leftist/anarchist.
I was willing to support him for Leftist tribal reasons.

MORONS!  I always knew he was a reactionary!

It's not clear to me.  I fear he is making fun of everyone.
If that's true, he's possibly funnier than me.
And that would make me sad.

Look here, Mr Wishy-Washy:  if you're not a good Leftist like us,
then maybe it's time we kicked you out of the club.
Why stop at kicking him out?  Let's kill him.  A true Leftist
wants to eliminate everyone who isn't Leftist.


My parents have taught me that Progressives are the very best people
who deserve every success, and that Reactionaries
deserve to die.  In a painful, horrible death.
That's the same way my parents are raising me.  I'm already a big fan
of NPR and PBS, and I plan to work the phones at
the pledge drive this year!  I'm so excited!

Our parents have taught us how to identify Reactionaries at our school.
Not just teachers either.  Fellow students too.

My parents taught me to keep a lot of love in my heart for
Progressive boys.  Or girls.  Or both.
This is you.  As a Reactionary.  Any questions?

Why... yes.  As a matter of fact! 
Question:  Why are Reactionaries so stupid and angry?


Answer:  Because they're stupid and angry! 
That's what makes them Reactionaries!

It's really quite unlucky.  They're actually dumb-as-fucky.

And also quite inferior.  They all can kiss my posterior.

Remember kids:  Reactionaries promote Rape Culture!

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

the boy wonder

Here's Part 2 of Amber Milgram's interview of Corey Robin.

***************

AM:  Why don't we turn to your recent book, Corey.  What prompted you to write that book?

CR:  Well, like all good progressives, I was on board with the idea of an Obama presidency early on.  After I heard his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I became a champion of a singular idea:  our glorious demonstration of a post-racism culture enabled by electing a Black president.  And our very first Black president, need I remind your audience?  Quite a feat.  A coup for progressives!

AM:  What about Obama's track record?  Did you investigate that, and determine his fitness for the White House based on his background and experience?

CR:  There's two ways of asking that question, Amber.  One is in a vacuum, the other is in reality.  I work in reality, so I simply examined the landscape in 2004.  Who was our President?  What was he like?  Could we improve on that?  The answer was obvious:  compared to George W Bush, any Democrat would be better.  A Black Democrat would be phenomenal.  It would prove to the world that America isn't some redneck backward cowboy country.  And I was gravely concerned with America's image on the global stage, and what that image said about me, as an American.  I was bone-tired of the stupid redneck cowboy pickup truck culture fostered and engendered by the Bush-Cheney administration.

AM:  As you know, Corey, PRN supports the Noble Democrats.  So I don't find much to quibble with in your answer there.  But please let me play the devil's advocate for a moment.

CR:  That's fine.  I enjoy debating the devil.  As one who is noble and pure, I find it simple to beat the devil whenever I encounter him.  Of course, as an atheist intellectual, I don't really believe in the devil.  So I kind of defeat him at the outset.  But I'll happily debate his advocate as an intellectual exercise.  My brain enjoys the workout.

AM:  Right.  So let's just say for the sake of argument that George W Bush is not really a redneck who drives a pickup truck and eats pork rinds while watching NASCAR, even though that's how you see him and describe him.

CR:  I'll try to assume that.  It's contrary to reality, but I'll try to assume it.

AM:  It will be easier for you if you remember he is a multi-generational Yale legacy with the bluest of blood running in his veins.

CR:  I find it easy to forget that every time he opens his mouth.  The only way someone like him could get into Yale is by legacy admission.  Obviously he's sub-cretinous in his IQ.

AM:  You don't think that is an act to persuade rural Americans into thinking he's just like them?

CR:  He's an idiotic reactionary, Amber.  No matter what accent he adopts, that's what he is.

AM:  You met him?  You interviewed him?  Or you had a long conversation with him in an informal setting?

CR:  No.  None of the above.  I am going on his public demeanor, the one he has chosen to represent himself as a political figure.  I think that speaks volumes, frankly.  I think it says, "Hello America, I'm a reactionary and I'm going to implement reactionary policies."

AM:  Again, just being the devil's advocate here -- what exactly about George W Bush says "reactionary," to your mind or your way of seeing things?

CR:  It's really very obvious, Amber, and I'm surprised you are asking this question.  Bush is a reactionary because he's a Republican.

AM:  So, "reactionary" is a synonym for "Republican"?

CR:  In most cases, yes.  That's because the GOP is the party that attracts and is peopled by reactionaries.

AM:  So if someone is a Republican, she is automatically a reactionary?

CR:  Pretty much.  And the obverse is true too.  If someone is a reactionary, he will be a Republican.  We don't have any reactionaries in the Democratic Party.  You might say the Democrats are the exact opposite of reactionaries.

AM:  What, in your mind, is the worst feature of the reactionary mindset?

CR:  Voting Republican.

AM:  I understood that from your prior answer.  I mean substantively.  What would you describe as the reactionary outlook, and how does it differ from non-reactionary perspectives?

CR:  My book says it best, Amber.  Have you read my book?  If you haven't, there's no point in us continuing this interview.  My book is the current leading authority on the reactionary mindset.  Everything is summed up there.  Everything is described in great detail there.

AM:  Yes, but how about our PRN viewers and readers?  Can you give them some hints of what they can find there?  Maybe to persuade them to pick up their own copy of the book?

CR:  Thanks to grueling, arduous research efforts by myself and two research assistants, I can offer a few tidbits to entice prospective buyers of the book.

AM:  You used research assistants?  So your book reflects the bias of your research assistants' perspectives?  Like how judicial opinions are written by the judges' law clerks?  Like that?

CR:  That's preposterous.  I can't believe you'd suggest it, Amber.

AM:  Why?  I use Holly Ballou's research quite often.  Surrey Prabhupada's research skills are invaluable to me.  That's how the world works -- junior people do the work, senior people do the talking.

CR:  Maybe you do that.  Maybe you use the lazy route.  My research assistants are basically initiates who are in training to become scholars like myself.  I teach them how to research things.

AM:  Doesn't that mean you show them how to discard things which contradict your pre-ordained conclusions?

CR:  Again?  Again with the absurd implications?  Amber, it seems like you are trying to discredit me here.

AM:  Surely you can see when someone is playing the devil's advocate, Corey.

CR:  I am insulted.  Being a progressive is a matter of principle to me.  It reaches the essence of my humanity.  It is part of what I am.  It is inseparable from me.  I would never shade the truth merely to advance a progressive view.  I am objective and wise, and fair-minded.

AM:  Of course.  Thus, you treat Sarah Palin with the same gravitas given Edmund Burke.

CR:  Palin was the reactionaries' choice in 2008.  I give her whatever she is due as a result of that campaign position.  Clearly the reactionaries thought highly of her if they chose her to be McCain's running mate.  Clearly they were signaling the point that Palin is a standard-bearer for The Reactionary Mind.

AM:  Then by the same token, Joe Biden represents the pinnacle of progressive thought?  Despite his corporate sycophancy and proven plagiarism?

CR:  Not at all!  And I'm rather angry you'd suggest it!

AM:  I'm trying to be even-handed here, Corey.  Why was Palin the exemplar of reactionary views, while Biden is not the exemplar of progressive views?

CR:  Because Biden's not a progressive.

AM:  And why is that?

CR:  His comb-over.  A progressive would accept his baldness as a badge of honor earned with academic and work all-nighters done under maximum stress situations.

AM:  Your sense of humor is very dry and far too subtle for my mind.  Would you please expand on that?

CR:  (chuckling and smirking)

AM:  Corey?  Could you please expand on that?

CR:  Joe Biden is a seasoned professional who knows how to do what is pragmatically required to achieve progressive agenda item goals.  Sometimes that means underhanded tactics.  Politics is dirty business, Amber.  I shouldn't need to tell you that.

AM:  You don't need to.  But thanks.

CR:  Don't mention it.  It's like sausage -- people like to eat it, but nobody wants to see how it's made.

AM:  That's a brilliant synopsis.

CR:  All mine.  You can quote me.

AM:  I may do that.  Meantime, can you tell me how you see the reactionary mindset playing out over the next 4 years?

CR:  Certainly.  Unless Obama is re-elected, we will see a corporate give-away on health care, expanded militarism abroad, wars both overt and covert in multiple places, a destruction and/or erosion of civil liberties, more bailouts for businesses that aren't struggling, more ignoring of the impoverished and un- or under-employed, and more profiteering largesse for the well-connected.


end Part 2

blast of kosher salt from the scattergun

I'd like to place a wager, Mr Bookie.

I'd like to wager $10,000 USD that if Glenn Greenwald were atheist, heterosexual, and dressed like Cooter from Dukes of Hazzard --but still wrote the same quasi-legal bullshit claptrap people currently fall all over themselves praising-- he'd be dismissed as some reactionary troglodyte who is trying to drag America back into the 1800s.

"Uh, sorry there, Ochstradt.  Can't find anyone to take your bet."
Come on now, Mr Bookie.  Just go troll the readership of Salon.com, where OCL's preference for male sexual companionship is considered proof that he's our nation's finest legal scholar.  Just go browse any place that reprints/bounces any "progressive" essay and you'll see the SWPLers praising OCL's supposed legal prowess.  Just go over to some Kill-the-Goyim website and watch as The Chosen praise fellow Davidian OCL, simply because of that 6-pointed star.

"Not gonna do it, Ochstradt."
What's up, Mr Bookie?  Are you an SWPLer yourself?

"I'm just not a reactionary like you, Ochstradt.  I don't think it's funny picking on Mr Greenwald's abhorrence of vaginas and breasts."
Holy cannoli, Mr Bookie.  You too?  You too with the "reactionary" stuff?

"What can I say, Ochstradt.  Everyone who reads you is tired of you beating up on progressives.  Progressives are our only hope.  You really want POTUS 45 to be named Willard Romney?  Don't you know Willard is a rat's name?" 

Ferkreisssakes, Mr Bookie.  Everyone knows Willard wasn't the rat, the rats were named Socrates and Ben, and Willard was the weird person who befriended them.  This sort of factual confusion and misfires in a memory, it's the sort of thing OCL does.  Come on, take my bet!

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

pies & skies

There are some holes in this thesis.  As someone who spent a good chunk of time helping insurance companies in their various state regulatory thickets, I am pretty familiar with what regulatory entities do, where they come from, what justifies their creation - expansion - continuation.  More importantly**, insurance companies are not regulated at the federal level.

And they definitely DO NOT want to be. 

So the idea that regulation is created and encouraged by the regulated, that's BS.  I don't care how much respect you have for Kolko, or for Carson. 

It's BS.

Regulatory entities eventually get corrupted by the same things that make people watch reality TV instead of seeing reality as it is, the same things that make people buy a new car when they just got fired, the same things that make people play a partisan role supporting a political party that does the opposite of what the partisan imagines.

People like to be affiliated with what or whom they perceive as being more powerful.  In the case of bureaucratic regulators, that would be the powerful entities they are supposed to oversee and restrain.

There isn't an insurance company doing business in America that wishes for federal regulation.  The various lines of insurance have trade associations that follow regulatory attempts at the federal level (authorizing legislation that would enable regulation, and/or regulatory proposals themselves) and fight strenuously against any form of federal regulation -- even if it promises to make the varying state regulatory entities null, or uniform.

When a regulatory landscape arises, any entity that does business in a number of regulating jurisdictions will want uniform treatment across regulatory boundaries.  A person or entity would want this whether a 1-person operation, or a multinational business entity employing thousands. 

For this reason, there is tension in insurance regulation among the states' commissioners (NAIC) and the regulated insurance and quasi-insurance businesses.   States want their fiefdoms retained and expanded, insurers want the states to act more consistently across boundaries.  States want a national authority that isn't a federal entity (thus retaining fiefdoms), while the regulated businesses want no regulation (in a pure positional sense) or at least the minimum they can convince state regulatory entities and state legislatures to authorize, or enforce.

Whether you call it "regulatory capture" (what others have called it) or "affirmative regulation" (what I call it), the point remains:  businesses do not seek regulation of their activities.

It's all part of a power struggle. 

From the perspective of an insurance buyer, or a person covered otherwise by insurance, the power struggles mean little.  What matters to the insured or policyholder is getting the coverage one believes to buy, rather than an illusion of coverage that leaves one open to fiscal ruin, or physical infirmity.

As to accountability -- naturally that would be greatest where the bargaining power is most equal on both sides of an exchange.  In a system devoid of laws and regulations, devoid of adjudicating bodies and enforcement entities, a large business can still have a lot of leverage over individuals, and it's pretty immature to suggest deregulation would level the playing field between, for example, a person whose auto policy was assumed to cover medical expenses, versus the auto policy issuer who denies such coverage.  The absence of regulators or bureaucratic enforcers doesn't really help the policyholder who gets the cold shoulder from his insurer.

A regression to the original Lloyd's syndicate risk-sharing pool would increase the leverage a policyholder has between himself and the insurer.  A radical deregulation wouldn't really achieve that, though.

Any desire for a present scale of businesses but an absence of legal or regulatory features on the landscape isn't really a desire to see things levelled.  It's a desire to see the chasm widened, and the private profits increased for those currently well-levered businesses.

A full slate-wiping would be required before anyone can actually guess at how a no-regulations, no-laws system would play out.  And I'd be interested in seeing how people would get their fiscal, economic or existential leverage equal to or over that held by large business concerns.  I don't think it would play out as happy equality.

I don't think the answer is found in the current state of affairs.  And I don't think tinkering around the edges is the solution either.

_______________________

**Importantly, because Carson (and derivatively, Kolko) are arguing that businesses want regulation at the federal level -- allegedly for "uniformity".  It probably bears repeating that I've also worked in a quasi-regulatory capacity on environmental issues, and am very familiar with how state, local and federal entities regulate sources of air pollution.  Despite what Carson might imagine, or what Kolko may have concluded, there are significant differences in scope and type of regulation when you go from local govt, to state govt, to federal govt.  The only place where it's useful to talk about regulation in broad-brush terms is conceptually, in the discussion of regulation-or-not, as a construct/idea.  Once regulatory power exists and is wielded, there are lots of differences in the treatment of the business or person being "regulated" by the bureucratic entity in question.

Monday, July 23, 2012

hype-ocracy

Eternal pwogglebot, Chris Hedges, mines a vein of iron(y) by writing about hollow men, hucksters, careerists.

Does he ever look in the mirror?  I think he'd see a hollow huckster careerist if he did.

Decades of apology for imperial militaristic projection, economic warfare ("sanctions") and human rights degradation at home and abroad -- does that ever get tallied when people rush to admire a Chris Hedges essay?

How does a writer constantly omit self-criticism when pretending to be a social critic?

More importantly, why do his readers exempt him, and go beyond that, and glorify and/or praise his writing, his supposed "insights," his adoption of the pose in which he's an "activist"?

***********

It's possible, I suppose, that Hedges has had a real sea-change of outlook, and no longer is a goo-goo pwogglebot.  It's possible he's actually a real, live activist who would truly put his own personal and financial security on the line to advance a better society in America.

It's possible.

But there isn't much evidence to support the possibility.

Instead, Hedges comes across like The Crowbar -- a smug pwog who wants to ping everyone as a "reactionary" and further the Dem vs Repub division, thereby distracting the American populace with more moralizing pontification.

The only visible difference is, I've never seen Hedges brag about that signal past moment when he supposedly found himself progressing humanity by kicking someone's head in when he was mocked for his supposed poverty.

***********

Elsewhere in These Toobz is a moronic essay by Frat Baby, in which he declares that a municipality buying up distressed mortgages through eminent domain is a positive for those who are underwater and/or bankrupt.

What the fuck, Frat Baby?  You been too busy sucking Mr Muni Bond's dick in the men's room to see that eminent domain exercise is an exacerbation of the problem, and about directly opposite a solution?

Fuckin' Frat Baby.  "Mmbkwsssshbnubbbbssssshwk!  There!  How was that Mr Muni Bond?  Wanna splash my face next time?"

What an asshole.

***********

And a Pee Ess to all of you rottencrotch'd uber-pwogs:

Jill Stein, MD of the "Green" Party is NOT your savior, and the "green" party is not your savior, and the "green" economy is not a fix.

The "green" party is designed to take OLIEs and other Lifestyle Poseurs and funnel them into a new-ish branch of big government hyperconsumerist capitalism -- the "green economy."

It's as big a scam as Hopey McChange's 2004-08 pretense at being more "progressive" than Dubya Boosh.

Friday, July 20, 2012

pat your own back, pwoggy!

The ancient asshole, Gnome Chomp-Ski, has looked at the world and determined that the worst thing happening today is that the Magna Carta is being destroyed!

I don't know about you, but I get all puffed up with pride when I associate myself with Gnome, say his name in discussions, mention him in passing at a cocktail party, reference his "anarchist" stance at a BBQ.  I feel just like one of those self-described "intellectual leftists" who populate the Poseur Portion of them Toobz.

Classic Gnome:  declare that something long dead is now being resurrected and destroyed anew!  That's right, you Radical Leftist Intellectuals -- it's time for you to write letters to congressmen, aldermen, city councilmen, and newspaper editors, and the letters should whinge and keen and wail and greet about the MURDER OF THE MAGNA CARTA!

Up to now, I felt safe and secure in my daily life, protected by the MAGNA CARTA's immense power.  It was like a force-field, or a ballistic carbon weave blanket.  It protected me from all evils!

I am now TERRIFIED, because it has been destroyed.

According to Gnome.

Beware the death of the MAGNA CARTA!

Thursday, July 19, 2012

drooling all over the place

Here's a certified genius, commenting at ICH:

Western foreign policies are not driven by big business. Rather, they are driven by international finance. The international financiers and bankers control the governments of the Western countries. "Big business" is merely an adjunct. If "big business" does not do the bidding of the bankers, they will be denied loans and access to money markets. If that happens they go out of business.

Aaaaaahhh. The "wisdom" of basement-dwelling Hitler-worshipers.

Maybe this clown should try working in the executive areas of large national or multinational businesses, and see just how much "international financiers" control things.

Every large national or international business I worked with/for was nearly completely divorced from "international financiers," despite what Hitler Jr seems to think.

The scenario Hitler Jr sees is one residing primarily in Hitler Jr's imagination, not one that is found everywhere in business.

I'd like to hear one simple example of how Hitler Jr's imagined world is playing out, right now, in an American business. Today.

What the quoted comment reveals is the bizarre problem ICH has with a lack of integrity, and namely one which centers around rabid hatred of Jews. "International financiers" is ICH code-speak for "the Rothschilds," and the legend among the Junior Hitlers is that the Rothschilds run everything.

I've never seen even the faintest hint of Rothschild reach in any of the corporate legal travels I've done -- and I did them for a decade.

Hitler Jr imagines that, for example, Transamerica Insurance Group doesn't actually sell insurance and use the premium intake for investment. Instead, Hitler Jr imagines that TIG sits around, biting its nails, ignoring premium intake, and worrying over whether a Rothschild business entity will loan money to TIG.

I don't think Hitler Jr knows anything about corporate acts nor corporate finance, despite the arrogant conclusiveness of Hitler Jr's comment.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

SSD

(swift... silent... deadly)

Here is why Our Infotainment Keepers of Wisdom and Truth spend so much time talking about the NY Times as the nation's "newspaper of record" -- why the Grey Lady is considered authoritative.  It's because the most meritocratic, factitious and rhetorically clever/slippery works are used to suggest there's absolutely nothing wrong with remote-kills.

"Moral case"?  What the fuck.  Where does Scott Shane get his expertise on "morality" and what gives him the right to argue ANY case, let alone one posturing at morality? 

He gets his "expertise" by being a writer for the NY Times.  Most pwogs and libtardfucks consider the NY Times not a source of things to consider, but a source of truth to be assimilated into one's view of existence.  Thus if a NY Times writer puts his rhetorical beanie on his scalp and writes something like a "moral defense" of remote-killing drone-format assassins, Pwoggleville and Libtardfuckistan will quickly rally behind Scott Shane, the Grey Lady, Barry O'Barmy, etc. and consider themselves "moral" for having done so -- and, necessarily, will automatically assume that we who oppose drones for any such purpose, we are highly immoral.

Fucking psy-ops. 

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

fucking copycat toadies of pwogville

Yeah, me & Russell Brand are pals.  Isn't he just the coolest and funniest dude on Earth?
 
Remind me again why anyone thinks Matt Stoller is wise and informed.

Please.

Has he actually jettisoned the Donkle?  If so, when?  And how?  And why?  Has he shared that ditching with his 4 readers who are his bestest buddies from J-school?

Fucking Matt Stoller.

And why are all the "notable" dipshit pwoggle so fucking clueless, and the people who actually understand and communicate what's going on, they're ignored roundly?

Fucking pwoggle.

Fucking Stoller was arguing more/better Donkeys as recently as 9 months ago.  Fucking Eve's Myth was munching the carpet of Stepford Wife Bitsy Warren.

Who are these fucking eedjits who find apology-for-the-system-despite-its-problems an actual analysis of the situation?

Get a fucking grip already.  When you go to the E.R. with a suspected broken radius, are you satisfied when they simply tell you that you are ____ years old, ____ tall, and weigh ____ lbs?  Don't you want to know if the arm is broken?  And if so, how to handle the fracture?

Apparently, if you're a fucking pwog, all you want to know is whether you're still a living breathing human.

Gee, thanks for the fucking obviousness, you non-thinking, un-intelligent dolt brigade.

Monday, July 16, 2012

amber milgram interviews diamond merchant jr college professor

She's back, folks.  Your favorite progressive public intellectual, Amber Milgram, has just completed an interview with the massively impressive scholar of tit-for-tat-ism, Corey Robin. 

Mr Robin is Professor of Partisan Divisiveness at Diamond Merchants Junior College in the Brooklyn borough of NYC.  He is a published author and blogger, and self-described authority on Reactionaries. 

This was a juicy interview, folks.  Sit down, get yourself a glass of (H2O + Cl + Fl) fresh from your tap, and experience the masterful interviewing skills of Ms Milgram.

******************

Amber Milgram:  Good evening.  I'm Amber Milgram with Progressive Reports Now, and this afternoon we welcome to our studios an accomplished Keyboard Warrior, lecturer in political partisanship, and full-time Idiot-Savant.  Yes.  It's true.  We secured an interview with the noble and pure-hearted partisan pugilist, Corey Robin.  Professor Robin, welcome.

Corey Robin:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  I appreciate the chance to have an audience with your readers and viewers.  I believe they can benefit from the many interesting things I have learned.

AM:  I'm sure our viewers and readers will come away very well informed.  Thank you for joining us here today.

CR:  Let's hope they're willing to open their eyes and minds to some cold, hard facts that will prove how Reactionaries are destroying America.

AM:  Why don't you start by telling us how you first became interested in politics, Corey.

CR:  Of course.  Perfect first question.  When I was in 3d grade I ran for Student Council at my school, which was a Montessori School.  At the time they didn't have a Student Council, so I suggested forming one.  One thing led to another and before you knew it, I had formed the Student Council, run for the office of 3d grade representative, and nearly instantly was promoted to Chief Executive of the Council.

AM:  Fascinating.  So you were an organizer, a lobbyist, a candidate, an officeholder, and then the supreme executive, all within a short period of time?

CR:  Yes.  And all within 3d grade.  To be more precise, to be perfectly factual, it happened during the month of September in my 3d grade year, and I think more accurately, within a 3 hour period on the 14th of September.

AM:  That's remarkable.  You move quickly.  What prompted you to act on the 14th of September?

CR:  At dinner on September 13, my father was complaining about how The Republicans were ruining everything in America.  I asked him, "Father, what is a Republican?"  And he responded, "Son, they are the lowest of the low, the evilest of the evil, the dirtiest of the dirty trick artists.  They are the guys in the black hats, the ones who steal cows from other ranchers, the ones who will try to sell you a used car that barely runs."  By the time we were eating dessert, I had decided it would be my job from that point forward to make sure none of my classmates ever became a Republican. 

AM:  Incredible.  What kind of work did your father do?

CR:  At that point in his life, he was in public education.

AM:  A noble profession, to be sure.  I can see now how you have become the man you are today, having such a man as your father.  What did he do in the public schools?

CR:  He was the assistant principal at my school.

AM:  But you just said a few moments ago that you went to a Montessori School.

CR:  That's what all the alumni call it.  It's a sort of joke.  We called it that because a lot of Italian kids went there.

AM:  I'm afraid I don't get the joke.

CR:  That's okay.  Most people don't get it. 

AM:  So, on Sept 14 in your 3d grade year, you decided to create a student government.  All by yourself.

CR:  That's right, Amber.  Someone had to do it.  And whoever makes the effort, gets the glory.  I made the effort.  It made a lot of classmates jealous.

AM:  Jealous?  In what ways?

CR:  For example, they claimed the only reason the student government got created, the 3d grade seat was awarded to me, and the Chief Executive spot later awarded to me, was because of who my father was.  They said I'd never have earned those things if someone else were vice principal of our school.

AM:  And you disagreed.

CR:  Of course!  Look at the facts!  (1) We had no student government.  (2) We desperately needed one.  (3) Nobody else was working to do it, to create a student government.  On those facts, why would they award anything to someone other than me?  I did all the work!

AM:  What if your classmates agreed with a student government idea, but wanted someone else to represent them?

CR:  Why would they want that?  Nobody else showed any interest in it.  Besides, some of my classmates were obviously leaning toward becoming Republicans.  You could see it in their eyes when they looked at me at the awards ceremony in the Auditorium.  A few of them even threw tomatoes at me when I walked up to the dais to receive my certificate and pin denoting my new achievement.  It was my first taste of jealousy and it was more bitter and sour than a lemon, let me tell you.

AM:  That's an interesting answer, Corey.  How did you know your classmates wanted to become Republicans?

CR:  Their jealousy.

AM:  I see.

CR:  No, you don't understand.  Let's look at the facts.

AM:  I'm willing.

CR:  I was running as a noble Democrat.  I declared my affiliation from the very start.  I declared that my platform was to rid the school, and its surrounding neighborhood, of all traces of Republican sentiment and thinking.

AM:  That seems an awfully advanced perspective for a 3d grader.  It actually sounds like an adult perspective.

CR:  My mother helped a little.

AM:  A little?  Well, mothers do want the best for their children.  How did she help?

CR:  She said, "Corey you need help framing the issues.  Politics is all about how you frame things."  And proceeded from there.

AM:  Fascinating.  I thought the concept of "framing" originated with George Lakoff.  But here you are telling me that 35 years ago, your mother was talking about "framing" in the context of politics.

CR:  That's right Amber.  Let's look at the facts, shall we?  On one hand we have my mother telling me 35 years ago about "framing."  On the other hand, we have Professor Lakoff taking credit for the idea approximately 18 years ago, or in more relevant terms, 17 years after my mother was talking about it.  Clearly Professor Lakoff got the idea from my mother.  Through me.  After hearing about my accomplishments in 3d grade.  That's the only explanation possible from the facts known today.  And I trust the facts.

AM:  I'm mystified.  George Lakoff is one of the leading thinkers about political rhetoric today.  You're suggesting he plagiarized your mother's work?

CR:  Amber, my mother was very active politically and had learned a lot through her activism by the time I was a third-grader.  She was a great believer in Marx's praxis.

AM:  What types of political work did your mother do prior to you entering 3d grade?  Did she organize campaigns for local political figures?  Volunteer going door-to-door?  Work the phone banks for contributions?

CR:  She was the leader of the local Junior League chapter.  Mostly she collated recipes, organized catering for charity balls, and gave advice on what to wear at formal events.

AM:  I'm sorry.  You said something about politics.  But you just talked about the Junior League.  So what did you mother do, politically speaking.

CR:  Let's look at the facts, Amber.  The Junior League helps shape the attitudes and outlooks of our nation's finest young women -- the daughters of privilege.  The Junior League is concerned with preserving the privileges inherent in being a Rich White Person.  By its very nature, it is a political creature.  The facts prove it, Amber.  The facts are all we need.

AM:  You'll forgive my slowness in the uptake, I hope.  You keep referring to "the facts" but then you raise notions that you consider "facts" but they don't sound factual to me.  They sound more like an adult's fond memories of a childhood experience.  Exaggerated for effect, seen through a soft-focus filter, et cetera. 

CR:  What do you mean, Amber?

AM:  Well, to be honest, I don't see the Junior League as being a political entity. 

CR:  You've never been a member, I take it.

AM:  No.  I didn't go to a boarding school, nor a finishing school.  I didn't have a debutante ball in my honor.  I did not belong to any Junior League at any point in my life.

CR:  Once again, the facts prove me correct!

AM:  What "facts" are we discussing now?  I'm sorry.  I'm embarrassed by my inability to keep up with you.  You are quite clever and quick.  I think.

CR:  You just offered the most important fact on why you don't think my mother had political experience.

AM:  And that is...?

CR:  You haven't ever belonged to a Junior League chapter.

AM:  And that is relevant because...?

CR:  The fact of the matter, the cold hard fact, the important and only fact, is that my mother's experience in the Junior League provided her with valuable insights on politics.

AM:  I'm still a bit confused on how that experience with the Junior League would be relevant to political insights applicable to creating a student government in an elementary school.

CR:  Clearly the facts support me here, Amber.  Are you intentionally ignoring the facts?  That would be a shame.

AM:  Excuse me?  Corey, would you please take a moment and explain why you are using this interview as a festival of passive-aggressive and arrogant put-downs?  I thought we were going to hear you talk about Reactionaries today, and all I've heard so far is how you, your mother, and your father worked together to get you a star position in 3d grade student government.  I'm beyond confused at this point.  But maybe it's my fault for not giving you a clear picture of what this interview would cover.

CR:  I assumed it was all about me, my political acumen, and my recent book.  3 aspects, 1 life.  A holy trinity, of sorts.  Heh.  That's a joke, Amber.  Religion is for reactionaries!

--end Part I--

sorry, but I don't like people

The All-Seeing Eye reports (footnotes omitted) the following on introversion:
Implications

Acknowledging that introversion and extraversion are normal variants of behavior can help in self-acceptance and understanding of others. For example, an extravert can accept her introverted partner's need for space, while an introvert can acknowledge his extraverted partner's need for social interaction.
This fluffy pap should be stricken from the Wiki entry. It says nothing. It's like some bizarre pop psychology fan's optimism on human interaction, not a feature of introversion.
Researchers have found a correlation between extraversion and happiness. That is, more extraverted people tend to report higher levels of happiness than introverts.
Extraverts are energized by interaction with others, so naturally the opportunity to interact with another gives them a reason to be happy. Thus, when being interrogated or interviewed by a "researcher" regarding preferences for human interaction and the happiness derived therefrom, the extravert will answer affirmatively in order to gain favor of the the immediate audience human, as well as the projected eventual audience of humans who may be interested in the "research." The extravert is biased toward declaring happiness, because that is both what the extravert wants to be true, and what the extravert is gambling on existentially: that every other human is extraverted, too, and is competing for the happiness maximum. Culturally, engaging with others and coming out on top is rewarded both implicitly and explicitly in America.
Other research has shown that being instructed to act in an extraverted manner leads to increases in positive affect, even for people who are trait-level introverts.
My own personal research suggests that acting, as a category of things to do in human interaction, is favored among Americans. Artifice, pretense and charade are rewarded in America, because Americans fear being "boring" or feeling bored. As a culture, Americans to a person despise "boring" things and people, and abhor being "bored." They demand excitement from the tiniest things.

Because Madison Avenue has told them they deserve and will receive excitement from the tiniest things.

Like a cigarette brand.

Or a cola drink brand.

Or a clothing brand.

And because Hollywood has told them they deserve and will receive excitement from such things as:

* A high-pressure job that creates pressure needlessly in order to keep high levels of tension among co-workers, to create an artificially competitive work environment based on fear of being 2d place. Like being Donald Trump's Apprentice, or a wannabe chef in some poncey Brit's kitchen.

* An extremely fancy "home makeover" that turns their acceptable lower-middle-class "hovel" into a wannabe-peer of the upper-middle-class McMansion, though perhaps McMansion Jr.

* Pretentious ways of preparing and "presenting" foods, such that people become obsessed with rare herbs, expensive oils and cheeses, and other edible extravagances, creating a "foodie" fad/cult within the country's populace, and one which would make the pretentious Elizabethan royalty's most spoiled children blush.

Someone who engages in these fad-explosion trends or activities is doing them to feel connected to others, and is displacing or mis-using their natural human competitive urges in a field or arena where the competition is unhealthy.

Seriously.

Competing with your fellow Yupple** on whose kitchen is most extravagant, that's not healthy competition.

Competing with your fellow pwoggle on who had the more divine and exquisite meal at the most hot and trendy new Foreign Cuisine restaurant in your town, that's not healthy competition.

Breaking out your respective smartphones when meeting friends at the weekly Happy Hour, so as to display your technophilic currency and superiority, that's not healthy competition.

Going car shopping because your GPS Caching Partner has a cooler, more rugged SUV than you do, and thus you feel emasculated -- that's not healthy competition.

But it's typical among extraverts, and so they will say such behavior makes them happier.

Even if it makes introverts a lot unhappier.
This does not mean that introverts are unhappy. Extroverts simply report experiencing more positive emotions, whereas introverts tend to be closer to neutral. This may be due to the fact that extraversion is socially preferable in Western culture and thus introverts feel less desirable. In addition to the research on happiness, other studies have found that extroverts tend to report higher levels of self-esteem than introverts. Others suggest that such results reflect socio-cultural bias in the survey itself. Dr. David Meyers has claimed that happiness is a matter of possessing three traits: self-esteem, optimism and extraversion. Meyers bases his conclusions on studies that report extraverts to be happier; these findings have been questioned in light of the fact that the "happiness" prompts given to the studies' subjects, such as "I like to be with others" and "I'm fun to be with," only measure happiness among extroverts. Also, according to Carl Jung, introverts acknowledge more readily their psychological needs and problems, whereas extroverts tend to be oblivious to them because they focus more on the outer world.
Again, extraverts report positively because extraversion is all about competition in non-athletic ways. Social competition.

You've watched it on facebook, in tweets, in forum discussions.

Admit it.
Extraversion is perceived as socially desirable in Western culture, but it is not always an advantage. For example, extroverted youths are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior. Conversely, while introversion is perceived as less socially desirable, it is strongly associated with positive traits such as intelligence and "giftedness." For many years, researchers have found that introverts tend to be more successful in academic environments, which extroverts may find boring. Career counselors often use personality traits, along with other factors such as skill and interest, to advise their clients. Some careers such as computer programming may be more satisfying for an introverted temperament, while other areas such as sales may be more agreeable to the extroverted type.
Balderdash!

As the most introverted of all my peers in my regular gangs in my youth, I can tell you that juvenile delinquency is not dominated by extraverts nor perfected by them. Extraverts are easy to engage in JD behavior, however. Because they need connection. Because they need to feel "popular." Because they need to "fit in." All an introvert has to do is play at the Alpha, suggest some JD behavior, and the extraverts will glom as a pack in pursuit of that thing.

Fucking robots. So easy to manipulate.
Although neither introversion nor extraversion is pathological, psychotherapists can take temperament into account when treating clients. Clients may respond better to different types of treatment depending on where they fall on the introversion/extraversion spectrum. Teachers can also consider temperament when dealing with their pupils, for example acknowledging that introverted children need more encouragement to speak in class while extroverted children may grow restless during long periods of quiet study.
Look.

Fuck the "pathological" discussion. None of this is "pathological" and to raise the term/concept makes the whole discussion bogus. It's like the affiliated terms "psychopath" and "sociopath." Once you give those labels power, and allow them to be culling devices for removing unwanted members of society, they will be defined however the in-power gang wants to define them in order to remove enemies both real and imagined.

A society created, blown up/grown/expanded/"progressed" by extraverts will naturally define the extravert view as the norm, as what's healthy, and will be suspicious of introverts, will expect introverts to do all the things the extravert does when behind closed doors. 

American society labels introverts negatively because of this --

Categorically, extraverts are the more fucked-up human, and their obsession with "connection" to others (which always implies competition with those others, and a desire to be "best") makes them the more manipulative as well as more cowardly, while also being dichotomous about their powerful exhibitionist fetish.  The dark human urges they can't really suppress successfully because they are so other-directed.  They don't feel right experiencing ANYTHING alone.  So anything done alone by anyone, it must be laden with the things that the extravert fears most.

Extraverts are the mass murderers, mass pedophiles, and organizers of social entities which work solely to promote and protect those violent sexual urges being given free rein.

American culture is run by such people.

Don't be an introvert here.  We're only about a decade away from it being criminalized.  Maybe less.

______________________________

**Yuppie couple.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

not the duck

"Oh hey there old sport, is that your secretary?  Sister?  Aunt?  Niece?  Babysitter?

"What's that?  Girlfriend?  Please introduce us.

"My name, beautiful compagni, is Arlecchino.  And I am quite pleased to make your acquaintance.

"My role?  Do you mean my work, my employment?  Yes?  Then I must call myself a traveling scholar who enjoys sharing what he has learned in his studies.

"My mask?  No, it is not to hide my identity, nor does it hide disfigurement.  It is because I want people to think of nothing in particular when I talk with them.  I want them to imagine the words coming from a blank slate, devoted to no man or cause, the voice of a man simply pursuing what's true.

"My uniform?  But this is not a uniform, bella, I serve no legion of warriors or crusaders.

"No, these are not pyjamas and you have not disturbed my slumbers.  I do not live here on the streets, though I am familiar with their residents and move easily among them.

"My homeland?  At this point in my life, the whole world is my home.  I am a citizen of the world.

"I was educated by nuns, monks, kings, queens, princes, dukes, princesses, duchesses, court wizards and royal jesters.  And by many, many interesting collections of writings -- books, I have heard them called.

"I am here to visit the Emperor, bella.  He has requested my presence.

"He is seeking my views on certain matters of importance to the Empire's various routes and types of commerce.  Because I travel a great deal, I witness how items are moved throughout the Empire, and I talk with people who share their thoughts on commerce.  It seems the Emperor values these things I have seen and heard, although I am not certain why that would be.  The people I speak to and the things I see are not the the work or words of lords, but the toils and troubles of the serfs.

"I have been a traveling scholar since my fifteenth year.  I began as a sort of apprentice to a more senior traveling scholar.  I was his assistant, I would help him by running errands or making observations of a situation where he was studying or talking to people.  He told me that my powers of observation were well above the average among all men he'd known.

"Yes, I have seen acts of violence and cruelty.  I have witnessed things that kept me awake for days, unable to sleep because of the troubling thoughts and fears that followed.

"I do not think these are things that should be shared with a woman, bella

"I do not think the Emperor will be allowing the Empress to be present when he talks to me.  For the same reasons.  That has been his custom in the past.

"Twice before.  Once perhaps 7 or 8 moons ago.  And once perhaps 5 years ago.

"My view on currency?  It seems to make barter and trade run more smoothly.

"I do not carry coins, bella.  They are easily robbed.

"I have someone else hold my coins.  He is responsible for paying my debts accumulated during my travels.  I assume he uses some kind of courier, probably well-armed, to deliver coins between places.

"Please forgive me, bella, but I must be going.  I cannot be late to my appointment with the Emperor.

"It has been my pleasure and privilege.  I hope to see you both again soon."


***************

Arlecchino idea:

The Independent is regarded as leaning to the left politically, but tends to take a classical liberal, pro-market, stance on economic issues.
source

plus

Bad boy

plus

Harlequin

plus

Dark Brotherhood subplot in Skyrim

capital of Alaska

...that at ICH, if you disagree with "Deadbeat" often enough, you get your URL banned?

Poor Tom Feeley, can't get enough people to fund his obsessive hatred of Jews.  Calling himself "Deadbeat" in the comment threads is hilarious if you read that handle in the context of his opening plea for your money.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

crackle-snap

I remember when this first arrived in theaters and I remember the reviews on it left me thinking it was a little pointless in its nostalgia toward the period (1973).  I remember that period in American culture.  I have no nostalgia for it.  At all.  I couldn't see why someone would want to relive it, in the same way I don't understand people who keep reviving, in various ways, the music genre called disco.  Might as well revive doo-wop, if you ask me.  If I ran a prison, I'd punish the prisoners with non-stop disco and doo-wop at a loud volume.  Turn their minds to mush.

I probably don't remember the reviews accurately.  But either way I'm sure that when they were current I wasn't impressed by the reviews.  At that point in my adult life (1997) I'd already rejected as empty & useless all forms of "criticism" that I encountered regarding the music I liked, the movies I liked, or the books I liked.  As far as I was concerned, Jack Green described all critics accurately here.  Critics wrote more to impress you with their dipshit trivia and pretentious turns of phrase than they did to assess the thing under criticism.  Or maybe better said, the pretentiousness was in pretending to be philosophic about the thing under review and trying to relate it to some fake-sophistication of an intellectual sort, rather than just giving a sense of what is good or bad or appealing or not about the movie, book, record.

"Whatever, Ochstradt.  You can't stand it if someone's still working on their writing?"

No, not if it's on my dime.  Thanks for asking though.

Luckily the current era gives us more "criticism" than any of us has time to read/watch, thanks to Them Toobz.  And luckily there's plenty of really pretentious or just plain stupid "criticism" thanks to Them Toobz, and it's all free!

Your view is as good as mine where art's concerned.  You don't have to like what I do, I don't have to like what you like, it doesn't matter.  There's enough to go around, plenty in fact, and so much surplus that you can want the world to be rid of the music I like.  I can ask for the destruction of all remnants of disco, doo-wop, fey schizoid hipster twee crap, and Adult Contemporary.  Still we'll both have plenty to enjoy.  Nobody's making me listen to doo-wop, disco, hipstershit, or Michael Bolton.  Though if they did, that'd be cause for riot.

******************

I eventually rented and watched The Ice Storm and found it reminded me of too many weird situations common to American culture circa 1973.  In the same way Dazed and Confused easily could have been the story of me & my friends in high school circa 1976, if you took the upper-middle CT setting and transplanted it to an apartment complex in the muggy environs of a suburb of the then-hyper-fast-growing Houston TX, it would have been just as decent a match.

I'm not sure it's the best thing for middle school aged kids to be witnessing parents doing sexual partner-swaps.  Even for the kids who hadn't seen it themselves, they were freaked out by it.  Parents are telling you all kinds of things about the importance of a family, love and trust, caring for your immediate family.  Then they go fuck others!  And are casual and relaxed about it.  And supposedly, it has no effect on their kids.

Except the kids are affected by it, they're getting drunk and stoned at age 12.

"That's normal human behavior, Ochstradt.  Early adolescence is all about testing one's boundaries."

I hope you're using "normal" in the statistical sense only, Puck.

I hope.

But I know, certain PowerNoggins think they're enlightened and superior about human sexuality.  They sexualize their kids at an early age, encourage experimentation.  They let their 11 year old son Elroy suck on mommy's boobs, saying it's healthy and natural, since mommy just gave birth to Elroy's little sister Tabitha and is naturally nursing.  Rather than teaching their kids about the responsibilities and weight of parenthood -- fertilizing an egg with sperm, I mean -- they hand their 12 year old sons condoms, and give their 12 year old daughters birth control pills, and tell them to "be safe and responsible," as if they were talking to a 37-year-old peer, who knows what "safe and responsible" means in the context of one's first sexual experience.

"Sex is natural, Ochstradt."

I didn't say it wasn't, Puck.  I'm not criticizing, nor being intimidated by, human sexuality.  I'm expressing respect for the power of procreation and the responsibility for rearing a child.

That, to me, is what The Ice Storm is about.

And the reason I brought up The Ice Storm today?

Because the present reminds me of 1973, cultural-values-wise.  Sexuality-wise.**  And by that I refer to sexual mores, fidelity, and the issue of responsibility regarding the impacts upon others resulting from one's sexual behavior.

Selfish aggression is a big driver of human behavior in present culture.  It's at the highest level I've seen it in my lifetime, with the two reference points just mentioned being the nearest or next-highest.  I'm seeing it in all aspects of life these days, but most noticeably in drivers  -- average speeds in my town are up 10-15mph from 5 years ago; cell phone call and/or texting-related near-misses with inattentive drivers are way up; people drive way too close to me, at 10-15mph over the limit, when I'm out walking the dog on 25mph neighborhood roads; people punch the shit out of the gas pedal at 4-way stops, 1-way stops, and red-turning-green lights as if every moment is a drag race.

In cycling, Type A++ stressmonkeys are able to use a program called Strava, which uses your smartphone's GPS service to monitor your progress on a bike ride.  Waypoints are recorded and times between waypoints are the source of a new kind of competition among cyclists of all sorts.  Now these Type A++ people don't go on a training ride and compete with themselves, they have a smartphone on their handlebar and they are racing fellow Strava-heads who are present on the smartphone display as a time for a segment (waypoint to waypoint), a time which must be beaten or else you're only half-a-man.  Or half-a-woman, or whatever it is that works equivalently for women as emasculating putdowns do for men.

Competition and ego-projection are at their absolute highest for my athletic lifetime.  Everything is being projected, if not by Strava then by twitter and facebook and online discussion forums.  The experience is now about externalities, not the essence of the experience felt by the person engaged in the activity.

As is often heard among skiers, skaters, bike riders:  if you don't have the footy, it didn't happen.  Or in 2012 parlance, "where's your web edit, bro?"

And speaking of web edits:  if you are eager to disagree with me on the main theme of this entry, I'm going to suggest you spend a few hours browsing Them Toobz for dirty pictures of people gettin' beasty with each other, and especially what amateurs are willing to record and share.

Yeah bro.  That's healthy.



_______________________________

**Greed-wise, materialism-wise, acquisitiveness-wise, I'm reminded more of the mid-80s.