Sunday, March 31, 2013

the reason

...PowerNoggin Pwog Parents are so gung-ho on public schools, and never-you-mind on the subject of possible flaws in the glorious public school system (cough cough Prison Complex cough cough technolearning cough cough jockworship cough cough twistonbullying with cocky Powitikawwy Kowwekt Pwog Pups being able to insult "reactionary" classmates but not called on bullying because school indoctrinates on PC themes and their cancerous rules of conduct...

...and why these same parents, at the same time, expect the glorious public schools to function not as teachers (nor as what the teachers call themselves, "educators" guffaw hack belch fart) but instead as surrogate parents who tell kids how to be kids, rather than actually teaching them academically viable skills like critical thinking and unafraid questioning... because the Eternally Superior PwogParent is too busy achieving to set aside time to actually be a parent, to actually teach their kids how to be, to actually show their kids what is dangerous, to actually show their kids what is offensive to others and socially frictive if not destructive.

So the school is expected to resolve problems like "bullying," which should be entirely the problem of the parents of the alleged wrongdoer and the alleged victim, to work out within their own families and, if needed, between the two families.

So the school is expected to teach kids about "bullying" and to install NSA-level "security" to supposedly ferret out "bullying".

News flash to Pwog Parents:

just because you, in your uber-nerd childhood, were occasionally "bullied" (read: existed, at various moments, within earshot of "bullies" who made jokes about your clothing or your books or your haircut or your eyeglasses or your braces), it doesn't mean that's a call to ramp up school "security" and force OTHERS to handle the problem of YOUR childhood nightmares, nor YOUR present day-mares about Your Precious Snowflake Possibly Suffering Similar Auditory Insult.

That's not the school's function.  It's a school.  Academic place.  Where kids learn academic things.

Social stuff is learned at home.  And your kids are going to be classmates with kids whose parents see the world differently than you, whose kids are raised with different values than your Precious Snowflakes.

Deal with it, you spineless fucktard.

take the Metro, dude.

according to the Dragonborn:

You are exactly right of course. I think it partly goes back to how boys and girls are trained. Girls are trained to spend a lot of time on feelings. Now don't get me wrong, everyone has feelings, and no they aren't "rootkits" they're natural. But the difference is how we teach boys and girls to deal with anything -- boys are told to do so despite whatever the problem is. If the math is too hard, try again. If you're afraid of heights or something, boys are told to challenge that fear, to do that anyway. Girls are not taught that, they are never made to do so despite. If the rollercoaster is scary, "oh you don't have to do that honey, we'll do something else" If the math is too hard, they give up and run to a grownup to solve that for them, and they never learn to do it themselves. This is the problem, when you are trained to be hobbled by feelings and to quit when things get too hard.

The problem is that the things we teach girls is the opposite of what is actually demanded by the real world. The real world couldn't give a fig what your "feelings" are, if they get in the way, we'll find someone else. They don't care that you're afraid, they don't care that you'd rather be at junior's little league game. So when girls are held back by feelings, they end up in the low power jobs. The power jobs require supreme sacrifice and emotional control, they require 100 hours a week in butt-in-chair time, they require you to be able to be objective about the tough decisions you're going to be making.

The women's movement is clueless. I've said that before. Honestly if you want to be successful, take what the women's movement says and do the opposite.

Thanks to swell ass-lovers, we can thank feminizing of men and "metrosexual" pumping for the above being true of current boys and young men, and those into the future as long as that's how American Lifestyle continues rolling.

"That's too hard. I'm gonna go home and play my Wii."

"That's too hard. I'm gonna go home and wear those girl-clothes my mom suggests that I wear to understand my sisters better. No, Dad never says a word about it."


So, since you never learned how to protect yourself from actual threats in the world (other than the ones you pose to yourself when jaywalking while texting, for example), you should just look for reasons to find antipathy toward everything that doesn't look the way you want, doesn't feel as you want to feel, makes you anxious for this reason or that.

And especially, expand and savor your hatred of anyone you imagine to be responsible for those feelings.

You're a savant.  Everyone else is an idiot!

Saturday, March 30, 2013

not quite that B/W

Feminism has honored women--by turning them into men. Now 'they' seek to emasculate men by stripping the workforce of the last few notions of competitiveness, combativeness, and male camaraderie, i.e. everything that makes Business and the Economy ACTUALLY FUNCTION. America used to lead the world in manufacturing and innovation, now we lead the world only in Victim Mentality. In the meantime Asia--where Men are still in charge in every meaningful way--is kicking our collective behind.

Why weren't there school shootings and widespread drug use and single motherhood fifty years ago? Because Mom was home doing the Most Important Thing--raising the kids, and enforcing a code of discipline on all those latchkey truants. That rise in your blood pressure just reinforces the point, that you are sold on the Big Lie: Women are only valuable to the extent that their input can be measured as part of the GDP.

Now those latchkey kids have every single toy that a two-income family can provide but are unable to form healthy feelings of attachment, much less Love, to family, friends, or Civilization--and get all their Sense of Self from Cosmo, MTV, and The Bachelor. No wonder Alone drinks. Me too.

A mis-step or two but some good points made.

The main entry isn't bad either.

Giving kids more shit... err, aaahhh... stuff like geniusphones pads tablets portable video game consoles/pods

while not being there to provide structure, guidance, non-trinket-oriented "support"

isn't excused by assuming you're the parent of an extraordinarily gifted genius of a child who doesn't need to learn how to be, how to live among other humans, in any way other than entirely focused on the self.

A child growing up without real parental support isn't buoyed by Mom's Great Career Prestige and Noteworthy Business World Accomplishments.

The ramping-up of narcissism since the Reagan era is pretty obnoxious, and the past decade's had a really nice up-kick in the Selfish Fuckers Are The Norm gig.

Feminism tries to excuse it because there's so much ego boosting going on and the dominant viewpoint of victim-philia can always use a good suffocating blast of ego-salve.

Look!  Powerful zuckbuck exec has it all!

(which "all" includes self-centered, arrogant, bossy children who assume the world will bend to their me-directed, me-focused, you-excluded trajectory in life)

(no arrogance correction; children assumed to be precious snowflakes with unique gifts who have a savant's ability to understand everything without instruction or prior experience)

(this is assumed because they are my children and look at what I've achieved)

(children never taught the world is dangerous and any time Powerful UberYupMom encounters something like real danger for her kids -- like a trail through the woods having a natural rock, root, earth trailbed which scares PUYM horribly when she projects images of UberChild 1 or UberMegaUltraChild 2 possibly spraining an ankle -- she is prompted to throw $50,000 (or whatever amount is sufficient in PUYM's American Cultural Power Center Metroplex (which includes suburbs and more remote McMansion Estate Farms)) at a local politician who now becomes her puppet on "public safety" whinges)


Man all that shit is so thorny and trap-laden that I think I'm just gonna be tempted to blame everything on misogyny and glass ceilings, and call it a day. 

Stereotypes are powerful, dude.  They let us project onto others various beliefs, outlooks, experiences and desires which truly aren't held by those others, and we can feel guiltless in the bargain.

It's righteous.

elastic... uh...

Justine Frischmann without this song in her pre-band listening history = ________________?

olympic 100m

Led Boots is Usain Bolt.

Friday, March 29, 2013

it remains consistent

she fastened her soft yet steely gaze on...

If you look at something long enough, or with narrowed enough focus, you can convince yourself that what you see is what is.

Being stuck in a view perspective outlook mindset is a function of that annoyance (if humble) or rocket fuel (if too narcissist) called ego self-image projected self.

You can go pay someone $225/hour to tell you this.

Or you can realize you're paying someone $225/hour to tell you what you know, and so you're wasting your money.

But that's what American Lifestyle is all about, eh? Earn money for nothing to pay money for nothing.

You win again.

You just keep chalking up Ws, don't you?

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

move aside, PowerNoggin're done, finished, kaput, muerta.  You can triple-Ivy with WhiteShoe employment and omnicontinental homeownership, but you're nowhere near accomplishing what this guy has done in this video.  This is the result of honest work for no direct monetary reward, which is definitely something you don't know anything about, because you're living one long GoPro/Twitter projection of an idealized self-image.

Choose your favorite intellectual hero.

Now imagine him/her at least ten times more "intelligent" or "erudite".

That's about halfway there.

took my suggestion

I suggested it here, it comes to fruition here.


Profit in goat roping, no trouble on the conscience thanks to the filthy lucre's ability to wipe it clean.


Cliche, hipster-ism, secret handshake, local niche slang, empty platitudes.

This is the formula for "writing," apparently.

See here:

Somebody around here has to stand up for skiing. In a great move that inadvertently defended the integrity of the sport, our Town Council...shot down the boringly pretentious Roaring Fork Mountain Club that, for a not-so-small fee, will valet park your car slopeside, carry your skis to the snow and set them down facing the correct direction, buckle your boots, confirm your apr├Ęs ski and wipe your nose to begin your pampered and properly sanitized mountain adventure.

I’m not saying that skiing has to be completely hard core, but the love handles we have sprouted lately aren’t doing much for the image. We’ve become soft around the middle, and that’s bad for the heart.

The greatest mystery in the industry appears to be why the sport is dying. Since 1979, participation in the sport has grown a measly 0.6 percent annually. The problem is that nobody is protecting the image of skiing.

We work so hard here to nurture our branding power with the Aspen Snowmass name. But, I think we’ve lost sight of the fact that we should be selling skiing first and our destination second. If you think about it, there is no Aspen without skiing, but there is definitely skiing without Aspen...unless places like Aspen, Vail, Beaver Creek and Deer Valley continue to up the ante on converting the sport of skiing into an activity for lazy rich people who refuse even to carry their own equipment to the slopes.

We are dumbing down and pricing up our sport to death. We are catering to a small group of people who have no interest or ability to promote the sport.

It’s no secret to ski industry executives that catering to the crowd that demands to be catered to is destructive for the long-term survival of skiing. Why do you think we go through the tremendous effort to stage the X Games here every year? It’s an attempt to clear the stuffy air.

The downward spiral caused by focusing on sweeping up the crumbs of the upper crust has to stop. Bending over backwards for the miniscule fraction of our guests causes inconvenience for the majority of our visitors.

WTF is Marolt saying there?

And where'd he learn to write/speak?

It's as bad as reading Greenwald on political crap.


Posturing Aspen as something other than fancy metrosexual upper-class wannabe douches who think it's "glamorous" to ski et cetera et cetera, that's funny isn't it?

What the fuck does it mean that "skiing has love handles"? What kind of fucked up metaphor/simile is that?

Reads like it was written by a Tin Pan Alley songshyster.

flatware template

puff of smoke

Well I best be reminding you that I told you long ago that al Qaeda was a mobrosaminvention, and that I told you recently that mo bro sammy and moe saddy were engaged in hijinks in Syria,

so that you have the proper context here,

and so that you may contrast that against those stunning disclosures of analytic foresight displayed by Wee Rice-Dicked Glennie, the international legal savant and flamboyant gay star of Carnival!

Roping goats for mo and moe furthers the cause of the wandering tribes, eh Glennie?

Gettin' closer to full mimicry of that Ernst Rohm character you admire so much, eh Glennie?

Maybe next time you choose to write shit like this, you could start with a confession that when you began blogging at UT you were a fan of trying to weed out Islamic "terrorists" and that you have have spent most of your public writing life, from that blog up through Salon and Guardian time, apologizing for US imperialism -- and that you're sorry for misleading so many of your adoring fans.

Yeah, and maybe you'll sprout wings and fly around the universe dispensing your wisdom at $100,000 per word, too.

tipster hotline

During the last station break we received a text message on our tipster hotline (1-666-000-1111 on your mobile):

Hello Teflon copyright sidestepper blog writer,

Was the Xavier in this post supposed to be mocking the person who posts comments as XavierOtto?

Our answer, honest and trustworthy and not-slimy tipster,

is NO.


As has been our custom, and one which has endured since the dawn of blogging time and which is projecting into the future with great earnest progressive inclination, we would like to once again take this chance to have the opportunity to remind our readers that while a paranoid mind-state indeed may be second nature to you, and might be commonplace among those living in America circa 2013, it doesn't necessarily follow that your paranoid suspicions are correct when it comes to your understanding (as it were) or interpretation (wrong as it may be) of this blog's posts.

Monday, March 25, 2013

tek no twash hipstahs

fargin' maroons

(prescient w/3 timely) w/5 cogent

Search term for finding most irrelevant scribblings.

not manchester

the united states of get under my boot, motherfucker!


...Trapworth O'Laytian.  He's a leading light among pwogwessive blogscholarpundits. He's ironic, so he goes by the handle "X. Trap O'Laytian" and thinks it makes him funny.

His favorite thing to do is this.

He senses some offense, some personally felt slight, because of the presence of someone in his immediate vicinity who looks like (s)he may not have voted for the same POTUS candidate during the past two elections and who probably doesn't watch the same TV news people or read the same brilliant experts on the various pressing issues of the day.

He's gay, and he encounters a vehicle with one of those "family silhouette" stickers, and it makes him feel oppressed because the "family" is heterobreeder awfulsexual

From this he pushes outward, socially, and begins blaming all the people who sport those stickers, and he notices lots of those stickers are on vehicles that also have the Xtian Fish. This causes his agile mind to conclude Xtian = Hates Me, ergo Xtian = Hates Gays, ergo sum Xtian = Reactionary Bigots who Will Kill Me Given the Chance.

Suddenly a whole segment of society is to blame for Exemplar's little moment of self-doubt.

Imagine the horror of someone having a different sexual preference!

And sporting some symbol that announces it!

The arrogance!

Clearly we can blame a whole segment of society for a single human's momentary feeling of unwelcome. I, for example, am jumping at the chance to declare that I was oppressed by brainiacs who envied my athletic talents, and by jocks who envied my brainpower. What bigots! I think intelligence is to blame! As is athletics! Any native ability to move quickly, powerfully, purposefully and gracefully is at fault! The ability to see concepts others can't, that's culpable! Being alive and wanting to actually move around, or actually think -- that's to blame!

Who does that give me as a field of targets to pick on, in my imagined intellectual guerrilla warfare?

weeding the garden

...but pulling up the wrong plants:

I recall how the ultraconservative Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga tried to deal with the problem of evil with an analogy: If you run out of gas on a lonely road on a stormy night, it doesn't mean your friend is a bad person if he fails to help you, because he didn't know you needed help. (This was published in 1974, before cell phones.) Plantinga really seemed to believe this move would work. But if you run out of gas on a lonely road on a stormy night, the God of Christianity knows it. He could add some gas to your tank without leaving his throne. Or he could inspire another driver to take a detour down your road and notice your plight. There are other arguments which might work better, but Plantinga used this one, and it's typical of the ways theistic philosophers have dealt with knotty problems in the philosophy of religion.

You'll forgive me for admitting I'm neither philosopher nor Plantinga scholar, but in any case, I'm pretty sure that's a misread above.

The Xtian God also gives free will to choose, and to choose poorly.  Don't need to read Plantinga to get that.**

Maybe the broke-down bubba chose poorly, and that's what put bubba there, and the result of the choice is that some people drive right past him, cell phone handy or not.

Remove your blinders when playing at philosophy, PowerNoggin.


**  Go read some CS Lewis or Peter Kreeft or Wendell Berry, and stop boxing your imagined intellectual adversary into this/that bogus narrow thought.  Or, read that damned thing they call The Bible, if you have the temperament for it.  And if you don't have that temperament, maybe ask yourself what that says about your bias.  It's clear that when I stand behind you as you look in the mirror, we see two different images in that same glass.

Friday, March 22, 2013

I see your hah hah hah and raise you!

...three more hah hah hahs, in fact.

Skiers don't consider themselves intermediates, or "average."  Polls taken by various ski shilling magazines over the past couple of seasons have found most skiers consider themselves "advanced to expert" and buy gear accordingly.

But if you go skiing anywhere on any day, you see lots of average and below average skiers plying various types of intermediate-level skills.  They rate themselves higher because they're plying those feeble skills on runs marked "advanced" or "expert."

The runs are marked that way to delineate terrain challenge.  Any skier who dares to go down there with skills below the suggested analog to the comparative challenge (hardest run at Hill Anywhere = rated "expert", at that hill) can possibly survive the run without injury to ego or body, and claim to have conquered that slope/run.

But that's sorta like guessing "C" on a multiple choice and getting it right because you guessed right.

Or getting an "A" in a class because you're on Varsity __________ and the teacher loves his/her School Spirit!

Surviving a run isn't the same as skiing that run without fear, hesitation, doubt.

Surviving a run isn't the same as being so comfortable on that pitch as to be playing.

Surviving a run doesn't make you an expert.  Nor "advanced".

It just makes you a survivor.

As with before, this applies to politics.  And here the "survivor" is the person who just discovered politics at some minor level of "greater insight" than that which comes from passing all of one's public educational institution's K-12 curriculum.

"I just read about those horrible Koch Brothers who are reactionary through-and-through and who use their millions to control the country by using their puppets, the Evil Rethuglicans.  Clearly all problems on the American landscape are due to the Evil Rethuglicans being a false front for the Reactionary Redneck Rapist Misogynist Teabagging Prepper Koch Brothers!"

Thursday, March 21, 2013

quite inneressting

sniffy sniffy mossad sniffy sniffy mobrosam sniffy sniffy

sniffy sniffy

I don't think it's dead fish I smell

ha ha ha

Politics = skiing.

People start out with their skis in a wedge ^

They work on balance and ski maneuvering until they get to the point where they can ride more of the time with their skis in parallel II

The reason to not use a wedge all the time?

Your skis are fighting each other, needleessly from a potential efficiency perspective.  They could be working together.

Some skiers have enough innate athleticism, balance and gravity-jones to go directly to parallel turns without a wedge stage.

Most skiers spend their days in a spectrum of dysfunction while maintaining a relatively parallel stance. 

The problem is that their skis are parallel but they still aren't working optimally, not working fully independently yet toward similar goals.

Most of them don't realize this because they're proud of what their skis look like (hey I keep 'em parallel!) and what run they just skied (rating of run being proxy for level of technical proficiency).

When asked to turn on demand in a type (shape/size) of turn they're not used to making, they stumble.  They begin to resemble a wedge skier.

looking glass

Progressive politics appeals to one's social vanity, and nothing more.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Ernst Rohm

So good to see the Noble Preference for Male Ass Sex being used to good effect here.

Remember, kids, if you're a man and you prefer to put your cock in another man's ass, that makes you superior to those wretched breeders who enjoy the ugly vagina.

Remember, kids, that bloated sexuality-projection is permanently woven into a braid with violence and tribal conquest.

Remember, kids, that all of this is perfectly acceptable, because we're an oppressed society, sexually speaking, and the best solution to that problem (assuming it exists) is to go way overboard and be hypersexual about everything, and start sexualizing kids intensively around 3d grade if male, or kindergarten if female.

Remember, kids, that according to Womyn of Self-Actualizing Power, all destructiveness is male in origin, and the best way to curtail our social discordance -- right after hypersexualizing everything, that is -- is to push all men to become metrosexual at worst, where breeder behavior is tolerated behind closed doors but androgyny the rule for public behavior, and full on flouncy flamboyant gender-transgressor Prince S. of Mintz-Nasz with the Pince-Nez, who resembles a cross-pollination of Jesus Quintana, RuPaul, and the iconic top-hatted dandy of The New Yorker, at best. Complete elimination of all masculinity is required, as soon as enough sperm has been donated (cough cough, done by mandate) to fund at least two generations of progeny via in vitro fertilization of one or both members of the new planetary standard, woman-woman unions.**

Or... just forget all that as too much detail to remember, kids, and remember this:

straight male = bad,

in fact, very bad,

and not exaggerating to say,

as bad as it gets.


** Standard for child-rearing.  According to Cath O'D. Truchyewlentz, who studied homo- and bi-sexual union practices across America from 2000 to 2013, the progress in gender and sexual politics has moved everyone past demanding public acknowledgement of gay and lesbian union/marriage.  Professor Truchyewlentz is Chair of Gender/Sexual Political Theory at the Busch-Muntchur Liberal Studies Fellowship in Bend, OR.

shut up you anti-semite!

pescado, sin agua

Apparently there was a trial in Ohio concerning a rape in the town of Steubenville.

As usual, the Concerned Feminists Who Always Prove How They Hate The Patriarchy are busy linking to scribblings by people who don't know a fucking thing about Steubenville OH or that region of the USA and why it is now a desolate wasteland while during and prior to WW2 it was booming with steel and coal related activity.

Some of this already was covered by Michael Cimino in The Deer Hunter, but we have another 35-40 years of rust belt dissolution to add now for context.

If you are a nifty keen pwogwessive who uplifts womyn and is enslaved by the NYT and NPR and PBS and Whole Foods and Green everything and Organic anything, you probably haven't the slightest fucking clue what it's like to live in one of those post-WW2 dead zones.

Hint:  they don't spend their idle time talking about latest kale recipes and which trendy eatery has the best variant on kale for under $100.

Hint:  they don't all get a $35k euromobile or Murken SUV for HS graduation.

Hint:  they haven't been accepted to the 5%er college/university of their choice by mid-11th grade; they're not even bothering to apply anywhere.

Hint:  the America that used to value what their local populace did (heavy industry work) is dead, and has been for at least 40 years, and there's no sign that it's going to reverse during the lifetimes of those alive today.

Hint:  REMINDER, you probably don't have the slightest fucking clue what life is like for someone in a town like that.


Here's what you DO know, though, as a staunch PowerNoggin more-feminist-than-you-broheem! observer of and pot-shotter during discussion of sociopolitical matters.

You know that if you pick an easy subject like rape, and stand in the shoes of the victim (for argument's sake, to gain victim leverage rhetorically speaking), you can use the subject of rape as a call to hack off the penis and testes of every man within 200 miles of Steubenville and thereby protect all regional women, like a good feminist would.

You can use illogical distillation ----> male commits rape, therefore all men = rapists, therefore all rape is caused by maleness, therefore if we eliminate maleness we eliminate rape, thus we must eliminate all men.

That does nothing to understand what is the landscape in Steubenville.

Have all the women and girls been packing their things to move elsewhere?  Are there no women in Steubenville?

How many times have you been to Steubenville, you imaginary victim by empathetic assumption of another's status albeit completely without functional equivalence or analogy between yourself and the actual victim in question?

What was it like there?

How are you understanding things in Steubenville if you haven't been there?


Based on what bit of factual data?

Using what emotional filter in the extrapolation?

Oh shit, just never fucking mind.

I'm gonna package it all as Steubenville = Reactionary Misogynist Rapist Town.


why the leftist points a finger Christers or crazed Muslims, but never at the noble Davidian Judah Cultist.

That's something I wonder about.  All these "leftists" and their eternal harangues against religion, but it's always Christian or quasi-Christian or Islamic religions being disparaged. 

Never a peep about Judaism.  Not a complaint about it.  Not one.

Lots of rationalizations though.  The Gnome of Ski Chomping does a lot of rationalizing concerning how Judaism escapes criticism, why Israel must exist to preserve Judaism, etc.

We don't hear "leftists" complaining about MoBroSam's various types of aid given to Davidland preferentially, well above and beyond what any other country with equivalent population density might receive from MBS, especially given the wealth of Davidland and the extensive earning capacities of its citizens. 

I mean, it's not like Davidland is 95% dirt-eater, 5% caviar-nosher. 

So why all the aid?  Why all the sweetheart defense and intel contracts with Israeli businesses?

Why the blind eye turned toward Mikey Chertoff's double-dipping on "technologies" that allegedly were "necessary" for our "homeland security" spending during the post-9/11/2001 era?  Mikey used his Israeli business holdings to basically award contracts to himself. 

That's cool, bro, because he just knows how to game the system, dude, and you're just jealous, man.

MBS has to give lots of coin and aid and "defense support" to Davidland because otherwise, the native religion of that land would have to defend itself from every single other non-Jew who envies Judaism followers and who, if given enough leeway, would seek destruction of Judaism and its removal from all traces of existence on Planet Earth.

We know this, because of the Holocaust.

If you are alive today, and you didn't travel back in time to stop the Holocaust, we Davidlanders are going to blame you for not going back in time and telling our forefathers and grandmothers that they should stop being sharp artists with confidence scams pulled on others, just to feel superior and to amass wealth.

Centuries of using others as your pawn so that you can get wealthy, that's going to come back to bite the hindquarters of your little tribe's collective self.  Centuries of deluding others, and lying to them for your own personal gain, that's going to hit back at you, karmically speaking.

Isn't that what you "leftists" say about the repuke Christer cracker misogynist reactionaries?

Isn't that your argument about their crazy Xtian fundie beliefs that you certainly feel are blameworthy for America's mis-steps circa 2013, the fact that redneck reactionaries are leading the Evil Rethuglicans who are performing political witchery that makes your Heroic Donkeys do otherwise ignoble things?

This little story at one of Pwog Central's outlets tells it all.  And the comments which follow give nice evidence of why people don't fall for the WAAAAAAAAhmbulance shrieking of the Davidland defenders, who pretend to be horrible victims of vastly more powerful and terrifyingly more dangerous non-Jewish neighbors in the vicinity.

bad taste

Once some co-worker brought in a jar of stuff called "jezebel."  People were standing around eating it as spread on crackers with cream cheese.  They were all talking about how tasty it was.

I hadn't ever heard of it so I asked what was in it.

(example here)

I didn't need to hear any more, I knew I wouldn't find it tasty no matter what miracle of cook-sorcery could be worked with the ingredients that sounded like they'd make me puke.

And while crackers are okay by me, cream cheese is nasty shit in my book.**
ahem, cough, clear throat

But about that jezebel sauce... of course in Extrovert America, you have to agree to trying this jezebel shit because that's what is polite, and you have to poker-face your holyfuck here comes a jetpuke to rival this scene reaction to the taste.

Or you can lie. 

I have an allergy to the anticipated taste of those different ingredients combined as jelly and then smeared onto something I definitely can't stand to eat, not even if it's buffered by my favorite cracker served at its pinnacle of crisp freshness.

(for example)

But in UberPwogwessiveWorld circa 2013, people carry epi-pens and use them like kids eating candy-flavored vitamins, so that lie probably won't carry you as far.

Oh that's no bother, my sister's an RN and she brings home epi-pens all the time and hands them out to us like she's a Merck rep giving away logo pens and free samples to naive young MDs.


I have had discussions with people on the subject of gory horror movies and the kinds of people who enjoy watching that kind of show.  Like Audition, or Wolf Creek.

I don't understand the draw.  I've watched a few others besides the two just mentioned and I just get queasy and end up hitting fast forward a lot.

Why do I want to watch others be tortured?

What noble, positive human qualities are shown, or encouraged, or otherwise suggested in such torture porn?

Friends who admire this kind of show have suggested it's the thing of being frightened that is compelling.

I find that perspective to show a very coddled childhood, so devoid of adventure and real danger -- real experienced fear, real existential threat.




I would expect a Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg to enjoy torture porn.

What I enjoy about the subject is how I can watch people be a tiny sliver away from being fetishists about seeing others suffer, and see how that plays out in their personal ideology or politics or world-view or philosophy or whatever.

Your good taste is my bad taste.

I'm not trying your jezebel sauce.



** Aside from the nasty taste/texture of cream cheese, they're always selling you lox at the same time, like it's some sin in Yahweh-land to eat a bagel toasted with butter, like the cinnamon raisin bagel is pissing off Hashem because it's a goyim kind of bread.  The bagel shop where I used to stop when driving through Livingston had one young woman about my age behind the counter who always scowled at my cinnamon raisin toasted with butter please request.  It reminded me of the way a HS crush's parents were down on my goyim-ness and wouldn't let their daughter officially "date" me due to my non-tribal affiliation.  You don't belong here.  This is our world.

Monday, March 18, 2013

the agony of defeat

In the 1970s on ABC's Wide World of Sports, the opening clips included a nordic ski jumper who ate shyte badly.  He was all full of glisse on that jump's lead-in ramp... and suddenly, a bad stumble.

Sorta like this:

The economic policies that prevail in the US are clearly not the choice of the majority, but politicians, especially Republicans, have managed to tie big-money interests to the racial and religious interests - or "social" concerns - of a large segment of the population so that economic policy is not really determined by the national will on economic matters. It would help to recognize that there are major conflicts of interest between groups in society - especially between capital and labor - and these will not be worked out to maximal benefit in an unmodified "free market".

Did you see the stumble? Did you see the jumper eating shit?

Or did you imagine him earning the gold medal?

Here's the stumble:

The economic policies that prevail in the US are clearly not the choice of the majority, but politicians, especially Republicans,

Right there.

Assumption:  the Republicans forced this along, the Democrats were trying to stop it, but the mind-control witchery of the evil Elephants cowed the otherwise noble Donkeys into compliance.  They remain noble however, and therefore earn excuse from the commenter's indictment of where MoBroSam goes wrong.

More power to the noggin!  More delusion to the belief!


Damn.  This one deserves addition.

Further below the above comment, in the same thread, another jumper leaves the run-in ramp and gets a gob full of snow.

It is indispensable to first accurately represent capitalism before one can ever answer the question of whether it's moral. The point here is that one must have the appropriate theoretical and conceptual tools to analyze capitalism as it really is.

Neoclassical economists don't analyze capitalism as it really exists. They invent a theory generated, superficial, idealized version of it known as the fantasy world of perfect competition. Since neoclassical economists analyze the endless mathematical properties of this fantasy and not actual capitalism, or only its superficial aspects, they don't have a clue as to it's underlying essence.

In fact, the purpose of neoclassical economics is ideological. Neoclassical economists' job, whether they're aware of it or not, is presenting capitalism as the best of all possible worlds that is in every way moral. Thus, why would anyone want any alternative to capitalism?

One critically important ideological role of neoclassical economics is shifting the blame for the negative outcomes associated with capitalism's normal, profitable operation back onto its victims. They do this by assuming resource scarcity and unlimited wants. Right then and there neoclassical economics becomes a study of choice. And, if people choose, then the outcomes are their responsibility. This way of thinking is impressed on every introductory economics student's consciousness and it is a popular prejudice. Hence, it profoundly influences thinking about these issues.

This way of understanding capitalism and economics as a study of choice purposefully, logically and inevitably places the blame for poverty, unemployment, homelessness, income inequality and other social ills caused by the normal profitable operation of capitalism directly right back on the victims' shoulders.

Perhaps the most ideological elements of neoclassical economics are the notions of the marginal productivity theory of income distribution and opportunity cost. Neoclassical economists studiously ignore and obfuscate the question of profit's origin. They assert that capitalists receive profits for the value of their marginal contribution to production and not because of private ownership of the means of production! The issue is further clouded by defining profit as the opportunity cost of capital! Profit is a COST, war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is definitely strength!

Only if capitalism is first accurately and scientifically represented can the question of its morality be answered in any meaningful way.

That comment actually reads very well.**

You know why?

I removed one short offending segment.

Let me add it back in, for proper context, so that you can see the way people show their own biases, or if more self-aware, how they show they are trying to tug at your bias.

It is indispensable to first accurately represent capitalism before one can ever answer the question of whether it's moral. The point here is that one must have the appropriate theoretical and conceptual tools to analyze capitalism as it really is.

Neoclassical economists don't analyze capitalism as it really exists. They invent a theory generated, superficial, idealized version of it known as the fantasy world of perfect competition. Since neoclassical economists analyze the endless mathematical properties of this fantasy and not actual capitalism, or only its superficial aspects, they don't have a clue as to it's underlying essence.

In fact, the purpose of neoclassical economics is ideological. Neoclassical economists' job, whether they're aware of it or not, is presenting capitalism as the best of all possible worlds that is in every way moral. Thus, why would anyone want any alternative to capitalism?

One critically important ideological role of neoclassical economics is shifting the blame for the negative outcomes associated with capitalism's normal, profitable operation back onto its victims. They do this by assuming resource scarcity and unlimited wants. Right then and there neoclassical economics becomes a study of choice. And, if people choose, then the outcomes are their responsibility. This way of thinking is impressed on every introductory economics student's consciousness and it is a popular prejudice. Hence, it profoundly influences thinking about these issues.

This way of understanding capitalism and economics as a study of choice purposefully, logically and inevitably places the blame for poverty, unemployment, homelessness, income inequality and other social ills caused by the normal profitable operation of capitalism directly right back on the victims' shoulders. President Ronald Reagan famously said that homeless people choose to live on the streets.

Perhaps the most ideological elements of neoclassical economics are the notions of the marginal productivity theory of income distribution and opportunity cost. Neoclassical economists studiously ignore and obfuscate the question of profit's origin. They assert that capitalists receive profits for the value of their marginal contribution to production and not because of private ownership of the means of production! The issue is further clouded by defining profit as the opportunity cost of capital! Profit is a COST, war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is definitely strength!

Only if capitalism is first accurately and scientifically represented can the question of its morality be answered in any meaningful way.

With just this little sentence and "proof" link to show gravitas (through obedience toward the NYT), the commenter does a little ebola crash of haemorrhage bleedout.

President Ronald Reagan famously said that homeless people choose to live on the streets.

Hurry outside with your deerstalker cap and magnifying glass, Holmes, I think there's an awfully blameworthy redneck Christer cracker misogynist reactionary bigot prepper somewhere near your house office "health club" or favorite bistro!


**  The first paragraph earns extra puffery points for its overwordy statements of polysyllabic obviousness. 

Friday, March 15, 2013

"Bowed lure!," I sing.

Whether or not the final crisis takes that particular form or some other, it’s a safe bet that it will mark the end of what, for the last sixty years or so, has counted as business as usual here in the United States. As discussed in an earlier post in this series, this has happened many times before. It’s as old as democracy itself, having been chronicled and given a name, anacyclosis, in ancient Greece. Three previous versions of the United States—call them Colonial America, Federal America, and Gilded Age America—each followed the same trajectory toward a crisis all too familiar from today’s perspective. Too much political power diffusing into the hands of pressure groups with incompatible agendas, resulting in gridlock, political failure, and a collapse of legitimacy that in two cases out of three had to be reestablished the hard way, on the battlefield: we’re most of the way there this time around, too, as Imperial America follows its predecessors toward the recycle bin of history.

What if someone didn't see 4 separate cycles / eras / periods, but instead saw 3. Or 7. Or 9.

What then?

Who says these 4 are the most accurate? What ties them together within their respective eras, and what separates them from each other as distinct cycles / periods / eras?

Puff, puff, puff.

This coffin also comes in black velvet slumber cushion with mahogany cabinetry, for a truly luxurious experience.

For a modest additional fee, we can add Donkey scrollwork to the cabinetry handles.

I’ve talked elsewhere about the way that this nascent vision helped guide the first promising steps toward technologies and lifestyles that could have bridged the gap between the age of cheap abundant energy and a sustainable future of relative comfort and prosperity. Still, as we know, that’s not what happened; the hopes of those years were stomped to a bloody pulp by the Reagan counterrevolution, Imperial America returned with a vengeance, and stealing from the future became the centerpiece of a bipartisan consensus that remains welded into place today.

See there.

It's all due to reactionaries, and specifically Reagan and his era.

The Seventies (in practice: that time after Vietnam, but before Reagan) were the noblest era ever. We'd just ended the Vietnam War by doing a lot of what Occupy: Texarkana has been doing over the past 12-15 months, namely dressing in trendy trustafarian clothing, pretending to be eco-sensitive/green, while biding time until accepting the job at daddy's investment bank or uncle's commodities and currency brokerage or grandpa's insurance agency.

Suddenly the monstrous, horrible, dastardly Evil Rethuglicans were cool and popular, with their overt greed.

We modest Donkeys, ever noble in our pursuits and practices, provide a better face for the nation. We are a better global ambassador.

We sell rape, pillage and plunder with a much happier face, and we promise more progress to the uncivilized heathens abroad whose resources we swoop down and claim for our own and extract and distribute or refine, at gunbarrel if necessary but we prefer nicely tailored suits, refined luncheons, and Mont Blanc pens used to execute agreements.

If left to the Evil Rethuglicans, the image of America will be that of an angry, hotheaded cowboy who hates women and doesn't appreciate the aesthetic value of a precious kitty eating fine cuisine from a crystal bowl.


This "interpretation" of history is possible when you loosely conceive the existence of a distinct era ("seventies") but when describing its practical confines you choose to ignore the ways in which it continued the Vietnam agenda and pre-built the Reagan era.

Solar panel installations suggested by Jimmy Carter is about the best you can do if asked to name something that shows some noble "seventies" period or vibe or attitude. But I think if you look closer you see cocaine is hip, quaaludes are cool, disco is dandy, porn is cable-ready/mainstream, movies in soft focus and I'm not talking just the -ography end of things either.

Fabricated 73-74 "oil crisis" happened then, to kick off "the seventies" with a message about who owns whom.

Solar panels ain't even a dry, gutless spit into that wind, Jethro.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

tickle your feet

zen music may not work for you but the messages are great

This is what I emphasize with first-timers, in simplified fashion, before they even slide downhill.

Most of the skiers I know who consider themselves "advanced" or even higher, they're rarely balanced on their skis. Most of them are being taken for a ride most of the time. They're using athleticism more than athletic wisdom, and they're over-estimating their abilities as skiers. In skiing more difficult terrain or snow conditions with fewer tumbles than they'd find embarrassing, they may be displaying good athleticism, but they could do much better, with lots less effort. As good athletes already, they can adapt quickly if they know where and how to focus their efforts. All they'd have to do is spend some time on easier terrain, much easier than they'd imagine, going slowly and getting to know their skis and how they feel from under their arches.

Some of them may need to go to the easiest run on their hill and work there. The impatient ones. The ones who ski mostly from left turn position to right turn position with a lot of hurry in between those positions. They need to direct their balance work jones in a more effective manner. It will give them more time to choose / change lines as they move down the hill. They'll be in control for a much greater part of the run.

no daughter clementine

..but still there's gold in them hills.

"Simultaneous usage" below essentially means trying to achieve optimum matching of the body's joints (and the muscles that power and dampen those joints) for the most efficient and powerful ski technique.  It refers to positions relative to the spinal axis, and relative to the sagitttal plane, halving the body right/left and decoupling at the hips.  Symmetry is one goal, but it's not perfect symmetry because the body is matching both the terrain, and the turn being made.

If you can dig that.

The easiest way to develop simultaneous usage is to have a student move through a wide range of crouching and standing extremely tall. Leaning aft like when we play limbo, some while leaning forward like superman flying, some while dragging an outside pole, some while dragging your inside pole. The objective is to experience "good turn / bad turn" stances. Concurrently, the stance corrections are there but perhaps not really the strongest focus. At least at first. A World Cup racer duo who were quite successful back in the day developed many drills like this and they are still quite active doing top shelf immersion clinics. If you have a chance, go play with them. You can find them at the following link (

* * *

[Bob] Barnes in particular is famous for that opinion and how we should teach expert moves from the very beginning. That doesn't mean the DIRT of the movements those newbies use will resemble the same range as the Level 8 / 9 skiers, it just means we should avoid short sighted immediate fixes and should instead focus on skill development activities that promote the development of the three skills and common threads that exist through the entire range of skier levels. Activities that work at all levels thus become very important and I'll share a few of those activities shared with me over the last four decades in a separate post.

* * *

But the original question posed about equipment, or technique cannot be answered without investigating much further. The relatively open ankles suggest to me that the boots forward flex (being too stiff) is an improbable root cause of the aft stance. I don't see much, if any pressure being applied to the boot tongues. Nor is it clear why the joint bias is what it is. Any history of ankle, knee, hip, or even lower back injury would be a large factor, occupations and habitual movements used there, or even movements used in alternate sports might help explain the bias more completely. We simply cannot offer meaningful prescriptive advice prior to discovering why the OP flexes so much at the waist in the first place. It should also explain my comments about crouching while using hip, or knee angulation. The RoM in the legs available while in these laterally flexed stances is significantly smaller and the unequal load placed on the tibial plateau often produces knee pain because it stresses the knee ligaments and meniscus. Again we can't say for sure but it might be a contributing factor in the hip flexing bias. That is exactly why I keep harping on the idea that without more information conclusions are difficult and the plug and play solutions that worked for someone else are not always correct for other students. GCT and it's IFMUM matrix was an attempt to slow down this sort of shoot from the hip and ask questions later style of response from our PSIA certified coaches.

Guiding this discussion towards that end is my sole reason for participating in this thread. Assuming too much and quickly drawing a conclusion based on those assumptions is easy but the accuracy of those assumptions limit the accuracy of the conclusions we can reach. Ask more questions, actively research and develop an understanding of the student and their past before offering advice. The uniqueness of their story will more than likely tell you how to help them change their skiing. BTW, after 134 posts, I have certainly seen a lot of opinions expressed but what percentage of these post included investigative questions directed to the OP? Flip that percentage, ask more questions and the accuracy of our prescriptions will rise dramatically. Without that deeper investigation, at best all we can offer is generic theory and dogma.

DIRT = Duration - Intensity - Rate - Timing, an acronym referring to the dimensions of how we analyze and describe the moves made while skiing.

RoM = range of motion.

I don't know what GCT and IFMUM matrix are.  They're kinda scenery here, anyway.

PSIA = Professional Ski Instructors of America, the USA's primary certifying and governing body for ski and snowboard instructors.** 

For the curious and lazy, here's the skier in question above.


Effective instruction or coaching or mentoring or counseling or advising, it depends on being situationally specific and it is hampered by shoving square pegs into round holes, conceptually speaking. Just because Resource A worked for student/client XYZ, that doesn't mean it will work for student/clients DEF, JKL, QRS or ABC.

You have to know what's going on with them, relative to the thing you're working on jointly, in order to help them most.  They're individual people presenting individualized questions/problems/issues, even if those q/p/i have arisen before, in parallel but not identical contexts.

This isn't limited to skiing.

I shouldn't have to say that.


**  The USA certifies snow sport racing and freestyle coaches (for snow sport olympic athletes and prospective athletes) under a different body, the USSA.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013


Malthus was wrong. Nature is not Malthusian. Scarcity is not natural. Populations are not merely algorithms. And "above" accepts as observational and demonstrable that we have rulers. That rulers exist does not suggest (a) that they ought to (b) or that must necessarily and obviously be thus.

Well, at least it's lunar, even if not a prophecy.

Every sentence such an obvious lie or mis-statement by bogus implication, it has to be bad, bad, mega-bad self-satire.  Bad because not funny, not funny because remaining narcissistic.

Unless that monkey at the keyboard is talking about Brent Malthus, who underwent a sex-change operation from Brenda to Brent, and found himself displeased with the result in every dimension.  That Malthus was wrong and nature was not Malthusian there.

But if Thomas, sure -- build and destroy a straw-man, it inflates the ego of the PowerNoggin, like getting a fresh bleed on those power-brake'd compositions jigsawed and cobbled as cut-and-paste of google search results as if trying to render the reader impressed with something superficially chromed, the better to see the reflection of self while basking.

furiously fapping fist

Back in the very early '60s, when I was about 20, I was studying Russian in college and taking additional lessons on the side from an elderly Russian lady, L. V. Glinchikova. Her late husband, when he was a young man, had been a banker in St. Petersburg in the days of the last Tsar. By chance, they happened to be in San Francisco (on his bank business) when the Russian Revolution of 1917 broke out in all its violence; and they were prudent enough not to return to Russia just then. Of course, they followed all the developing Russian state of affairs by all available means, including short-wave radio. It soon became obvious that they would die if they ever returned to Russia, so they stayed in California.

My friend Eddie Malagi translated the above for me.  According to Eddie, this is how it reads with a fuller context** in mind:

Here I recount the glorious longevity of my multi-culti perspective, which includes hobnobbing with escaped demi-royalty from Tsarist Russia.

I tell you these things to puff up the picture of sincerity and deep, knowing experience that I'm allegedly sharing immediately below.

But we don't have to take Eddie's version of things.  Let us read on while the noble jet-setting multi-culturalist embarks on the next phase of his instructive journey:

One evening she and I were talking about some American political issue or other, and I remarked that my parents hated and had feared FDR, and were certain that he would have become a dictator if he had not died in office. With some heat she told me that she and her husband had seen at first hand what led to the 1917 Revolution in Russia, and kept up with its aftermath there. They had also lived through the years of the Depression here and through all four terms of FDR's presidency. It was their carefully considered opinion that only FDR's high-handed measures and his careful spending of all his political capital had prevented a similar, even bloodier Revolution here. Had FDR not done what he did, she said, the United States would have descended into an all-around civil war by around 1940, and the end result of that bloodbath would have been someone as ruthless and determined as Stalin in power here.

Yes, it is always a binary choice.

Meritocrats managing statist mindless consumerism


bloody misogynist rapist reactionary redneck thugs who obviously and inevitably will end up trying to kill your mom & dad and rape your wife and daughters and they will likely succeed so please opt for the first choice of meritocrats uber alles, danke schoen.

It's clear we have no other choices now, and had no others then.

A person who has a biography scripted by the US State Department's Foreign Service exam question material has told me so.


** Not a sheepish follower looking for an "authority" who impresses with his/her authority-ish-ness; a reader/listener focused on the core message and ignoring the distracting stage props like ancient pottery and fine persian rugs through which we're paraded before the point is first approached.  "Madame Tsarist demi-Goddess believed FDR's dictatorial moves were not just important, but life-saving given the obvious alternative of blood in the streets and your daughters gang-raped by the very misogynist reactionary redneck Republicans you fear most."

but sen~or Behrer, piety requires obeisance

At the outset a new pro needs pre-prepared presentations but when we focus too much on memorization and not enough on comprehension, it all becomes dogma. That's why multiple learning sources make more sense. It's why we switch up trainers, we want the newbies to realize that we are asking them to do more than regurgitate a dogmatic company line. Bob is especially adept at communicating his desire that people carefully weigh information he presents on it's intrinsic merit, not on the fact that he so happened to be who said it. IMO, it's in the differences between trainers, programs and organizations that skiers will find that commonality and begin their journey towards a deeper understanding of the sport.

He may be talking specifically about skiing, but take that word "skier" and those last two words "the sport" and replace them with "people" and "the concept" or "the landscape" and you have something universally solid.

Proving your eidetic memorization of Glossy Karl's works isn't understanding anything. 

At all.

Regurgitating what OCL wrote doesn't mean you understand the subject.

Serving as a conduit for those in power** doesn't mean you are revealing how that power operates.


** Which is what your favorite "expert" or "dissident" is busy doing.

Monday, March 11, 2013

eminent sophists have persuaded you so, therefore...

it must be true!

So sayeth a Skeptic:

There are major economists who feel the same way. Much of our work is predatory, damaging and non-productive. Let’s hear more about those economists and less about the GDP stimulators, debt peddlers, derivative alchemists and free lunchers.

Yeah, "major economists" have agreed that JOBS are most important right after HOUSING STARTS.

What the fuggledy fuck is that nimrod talking about?

Just exactly WHOM is nimrod thinking about there?

David Harvey sometimes is on this trip. When he's not busy selling Glossy Karl. Which is most of the time.

There's an Aussie who is barely recognized, so invisible I've forgot his name, who actually is more essentialist than Harvey, but again -- invisible.

So list for me these Alchemists who spot the essence and ignore the sham-wow.

And please don't start the list with Eve's Myth or Imitation Henry James or any of those Whiskey Bar/Moon of Alabama Process Mavens.

shocked. and dismayed.

“I was shocked and dismayed,” said the law professor Charles J. Ogletree.

Yes, indubitably!

Saturday, March 9, 2013

that it is


this does not shit.

Before OCL kicked me off his UT blog, I had an exchange with him about Chavez, one in which he sold the CIA party line as well as any whiteshoe shilling for Lazard Freres before Judge Bathaus in the USDC SDNY.

True story.

Incidental humor:

Some of the "proof" offered by OCL was his lover's say-so on the "reality" of Chavez.

What a cover story. Highlight your gayness, not the reliability of the "proof."

Leftists! Circle the wagons and surround the Gay Pontiff! Protect him now!


This experiment conducts metaphysical rape of your desire to keep your focus inviolate.

An obvious first lesson:

When sorting out the causes of problems in American society, try to count the White Shirt passes only, and stop allowing yourself to be distracted by the partisan impulses triggered by the distracting efforts of the Black Shirt players' activity.

Friday, March 8, 2013

sign o' the


+ litigiousness
+ safety issues

- racers working together to opt out when safety issues arise

+ costs of skiing
+ 3d party liabilities in skiing injury cases

Racers should organize their own race series if FIS Skiercross course oversight isn't working.

Or at least take course safety into their own hands.  Whose bodies are they risking, anyway?

Tuesday, March 5, 2013


two chunks of sodium thrown into the water!

can't be serious

Sophist non-scientific scientist ponders the profoundly unthinkable (because ethereal and hypothetical and disconnected from reality) here.

My god, you idiotic fuck.  How many people you know with domesticated wolf pups as their dogs?  Any?  You're the fucking "canine cognition" expert, eh?

When did you learn to speak dog, so that you could hear them tell you how and what and why they think?

And how did you know your interpretation of dog language is the same as a dog's would be?

Holy tankslapping jawbreaking dirteating christ, you're a pretender.

Nice Chomsky imitation, though.


Dogs did NOT domesticate us, not in any fucking extrapolation that makes any kind of sense to anyone who has actually observed dogs and observed humans interacting with dogs.

People "domesticate" (take home and keep as prisoner) their chosen "pet" dog mostly for display (bioaccessory) or to have a whipping boy/redheaded stepchild handy when something goes wrong.  That a human can physically intimidate nearly any dog by the disparate size of the two creatures?  That's irrelevant, Doctor Canine Cognition told us.  Right after observing humans have been killing wolves out of _______________ (we're not asked to examine the why) for centuries, he tells us.

What did the wolves think about that practice when it began, Doc?

How about mid-stream between then and now, time-wise?  What's the historiographicalology tell you?

And now?  Are they resigned to the fact that they've domesticated us, and no longer worry about wolf-killing humans?

What a piece of pretentious meandering shit that "essay" is.

All hat, no cattle.

Big steer horns on the Cadillac.

Monday, March 4, 2013

stealth GSA, or...?

well the answer doesn't matter.

this may be suitable for the Maryland State Sport

traffic stop

You'd better hit the brakes there, PowerNoggin. Put 'er in park. Turn it off. Sit there.

It's corporations?



No, it's not just that.

What makes people use anything or anyone for purely selfish motives and goals?

Remove the corporate form, that urge still exists.

What are you thinking?

Are you thinking?

Just listen to this.

When it's done, ask yourself that question:

What makes people use anything or anyone for purely selfish motives and goals?

Once you identify the urge, ask where it comes from.

Once you know where it comes from, you know what you have to do.

Address those origins.

Some will be within your control.

Your control, because they relate to you thinking this or doing that.

Not because you want to control me and my thinking this or doing that.

Friday, March 1, 2013

they teach us

holy sheet.

She's 12 years old there.

You'd better get after it, PowerNoggin.

She's already achieved mastery relative to her peers.

And you?

inside elbow twitches, bat swing, whiff

Kristol Shrew Persuasion?


Kristol is a velvet stiletto; Rubin is a shrew.  Opposite ends of spectrum.

The "persuasion" part is almost funny; Rubin's only persuading herself, publicly, which is the game in the zuckbuck/shitter era of "I am what I snark"; Kristol would never use Rubin's approach because he's on the Rabbinical Rhetoric steam-powered locomotive where Rubin is on the Scalded Holocaust Victim train -- which is high-speed maglev.

A person without hypersensitivity to gender politics would probably observe Rubin's spew as typical emotion-based feminine reactionary rhetoric, and Kristol's oily salesman spiels as typical coldly logical, long-term-goal-firmly-in-mind male strategy.

A person without hypersensitivity to gender politics might note that Rubin's doing a fine job of showing why Blame the Patriarchy isn't working, because if you had a Rubin as DefSec a lot of people would be dead right now in order to soothe Rubin's shrieking paranoid fears of all who don't think talk or act just like her.  All humans are cool, bro, and deserve our respect, sis, as long as they are just like Mizz Roob-In.

Not only a tempest in a teapot, but also an opportunity to read the pot's leaves and make a bigger observation than that which is pretended originally.


his enlarged prostate made him dribble at the end of his piss

This only happens with age. Or with too much cycling on a nose-high saddle.

By the time one's prostate is bloated, one's ego has done the same.

The snark stance is consonant with the hierarchical world of white power, white male power, and unreality (fantasy, which is very feminine….sort of sissy stuff, actually) can be tolerated only if it is either pathologized (a mental illness, a hallucination) or it is pure decoration (the feminine again). Men drink their coffee black, steaks rare, and etc etc etc.



If someone chooses black coffee over cream/milk/powderedjunk in the coffee, it's about "being patriarchal"?


If someone chooses black coffee over sugar/honey/cubedjunk in the coffee, it's about "men dominating with their white privilege"?


This the kind of meandering, sounds-like-I-know-my-shit-because-of-polysyllabics-and-sorta-logical-flow-of-tangentially-connected-themes nonsense that Corey Robin and other pretentious fucktards write for even-more-pretentious fucktards to consume mindlessly and regurgitate in person or in writing as proof of being Ed U. McKaytid by fine scholars.

And there is a deeply entrenched belief in instrumental thinking, in logic, in the linear forward moving logic of Manifest Destiny, the internal combustion engine, and the assembly line. There is something yet to be tweezed out in this having to do with tools. With the direct hands-on making of *things*. For in such acts, and impulses lie several registers of contradiction and paradox.

That's some fine ass-covering surgical anticipatory striking there. Reading the rest of your puked up palabras, I get the strong sense that your entire schtick is expositional "proof" with a solipsist's sophistry. Why else can't you make your utterly simple point (simple is logical is men is misogynistic patriarchy is the cause of our problems) more simply? Why all the backhanded references to things you aren't and don't embody, if not to long-way-home your argument and suggest that the meander's scenery taken in is the proof itself, please ignore the thesis?

PowerNoggins don't know how to get to the point because they're not really making the point they pretend to be advancing. The only point they're making is, "see my fluffy writing, that suggests I'm correct, thanks for letting me warp your perspective as only Joey Weil could."