Friday, January 31, 2014

from the inside

I'm stunned to learn that the body scanners used by TSA, sold by pitchman Michael "Skeletor" Chertoff, didn't and don't work worth a shit.

Skeletor would NEVER be involved in something that is bullshit-for-profit.


Why he's a former US Attorney and therefore a highly ethical man!

His father is a reputable rabbi and Talmudic scholar, who impressed upon his son the importance and value of an ethical life.

And he was Prezzy Dubya's Secretary of Homeland Security, so we KNOW he wants to stop terrorists!

He would NEVER be a revolving-door bogus profiteer!

(we are presently redefining "never" as its opposite and expect full effect by the end of 2014)

My client's body scanners are just what you need to catch terrorists!

I regret having to link to for the "sold by" linkage above.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

today's translation exercise

So, you want to know if you can get some "safety tips" before you take your kids "out west" to ski?

I'd say you've failed as a parent.  That's my translation.

If your daughters have been skiing already, they should know how to keep themselves safe.

It's not like when you ski "out west," all the other skiers are CRAZED RAPISTS who are trying to lure teenage girls into secret RAPE HIDEOUTS.

It's still skiing.

Do you hover over your daughters when you ski with them at home in NY or otherwise in the NE?  Do you hold their hands when they ski?  Do you insist on riding the chair with them so you can strap them in and keep them safe?

Holy fuck.  These fucking parents today.  They coddle their kids, protect them from everything, make sure they "get into a good school," and nowhere along the way do they help the kids fend for themselves.

If they had, they wouldn't worry about "safety tips" for skiing "out west."

Jesus fucking christ.

You're not an "over-thinking safety weenie."  You're a failure as a parent.

fuckin' hilarious

Dipshit "outdoor lifestyle" people move to a town in droves, because 2002 Winter Olympics!, and now they think it's everyone else's fault that the air has gone bad.

Dipshits think promoting a town as hot, hip, happening = good, and the air pollution that follows, that's someone else's problem.

So let's have a rally to promote awareness!

Fucking fucktard mindless robots.


Maybe if they had remained humble and quiet, this wouldn't have happened?

Don't tell them that.

They don't want to hear it.

They're busy packing their shit to move north to Bozeman and Missoula. 

DOOD they need entrepreneurs in Montana's mountain towns.  They're so backward up there, it's a ripe vineyard for grape-plucking.  We can sell them anything trendy.  We can build trends to be the basis for trendy sales.  Plus after I sell my house in Sugarhouse, I'll be able to afford one with 1.5 or 2.0 times the sqft and I'll be able to get that badass new 2015 Audi Allroad.  I can truly be a big fish in a small pond up there.  Down here I'm not one of the sharks, though I have all kinds of cool shit that looks almost like LAlien style.

when you were 16 and experienced something for the first time imagined that you were first in doing that thing, and that nobody else had done it previously, and especially, that nobody ever would do it at the same level - quality - indescribable vague something greatness that you had done.

In this general vein of juvenile, egocentric self-congratulation, we have seen over the past 6 mos a general trend of pretentious, naive simpletons shoving their e-fists into the ether

I realized in May 2013 that Greenwald may not be on the level

and thinking they're the original critics!  Please congratulate them now!  Praise them on twitter and retweet their tweets!

It's a lot like people praising Fast Eddie for saying something that many others said before, and the others not being credited because Fast Eddie is a charming metrosexual that his many fans would love to take to bed, while the earlier revealers of the very same notions, they get dismissed as nobodies.  It's always that way, especially when the Heroes of Davidland are finding opportunity in running a Joey Weil scam of pretense-for-profit.


In any case... Greenwald? Who dares criticize the supposed legal authority of Our Constitutional Lawyer, anyway? At his present rate, Greenwald will soon replace Alan Dershowitz as the nation's favorite media-friendly lawyer who will say anything for a dime.

Posted by CF Oxtrot | October 19, 2010 4:16 PM

You may want to re-think that idea that you're the FIRST to spot OCL's fraud and discuss it publicly if you're talking about it for the first time in May 2013.

I'm gonna suggest you make yourself into the Fast Eddie role here. Promote yourself with a cross-platform media blast, complete with images of your face looking its metrosexual, QEFTSG-approved best. Build a "backstory" about your rise from no-fame nobody to brilliant, highly paid "expert" in a field that employs only technically accomplished folks, despite your lack of technical accomplishment.

Don't forget the hot stripper girlfriend. Or boyfriend... eh, Tarzie?


If you actually were aware of OCL's fraudulent self earlier than May 2013, probably you should show us how, where, when you discussed this insight.  Maybe provide an evolutionary description of the scales falling from your eyes and the vision rendered clear.

If'n ye gots that.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

put yourself on the map!

Before you get high-and-mighty on me regarding the assumption of collapse that gives rise to the pictured map, STOP.

And tell me:  what makes you think things are not collapsing?

I'll tell you what I see:  generally speaking, contraction of the Modern American Society has been ongoing since the end of WW2, and only bubbles of distraction (termed "economic growth") have prevented people from seeing this general trend.

You can quarrel with me if you like, but I'm convinced that if you're not seeing the collapse trend and general acceleration of that trend over the last 20-25 years, you're simply not looking because you don't want to see it.

I'd also say that it puts you squarely in one of these mapped categories:

A. Deniers
C. Globalists
D. Technotopians
E. Integrals

and I say that based on the people who have bothered to leave something other than the classic ring-and-run, dine-and-ditch, drink-and-dash, snark-and-leave nonsense.  In fact, I'd say that most who have bothered to leave a mostly-serious thought on the matter while commenting here, they would fit as D. Technotopians.

They're wrong.  But you really can't tell them that.  Sci-Fi has sustained them this far in life, and it will lend its delusional powers of fantasy and The Religion of Avowed Atheists until they're on their deathbed and feeling the last gasps of life, at which moment they will suffer a bout of honest revocation of lifelong naivete.


Contrary to the repeated statements, as if verified fact, offered by the highly opinionated arrogant fucktard "Jack Crow" (whoever he/she is) that used to comment here, I am not within these categories:

J. Existentialists
K. Neo-Survivalists

Rather, I am split among these:

G. Transition/Resilience Movement
H. Deep-Green Activists
I. Communitarians

Why would Fucktard Crow have put me in J or K?  Because of arrogance, because of a dictatorial impulse (agree or die), and because Crowtard never, not even for a moment, understood this blog or its author's various manifested authorial vectors.  Ultimately, the Crowtard got pissed off when he/she/it realized his/her/its errors about me, and began strident disagreements and the sad, middle-school-maturity insults like calling me a misogynist, a rapist, a rape fantasist -- because I didn't agree with him/her/it on communism, Marxism, or futurism as the path I'd choose for myself.  My way or the highway, as the crow flies.

Cough cough.



I. Communitarians is where I'd like to think things will go.  But I doubt that's what will happen.

G. Transition/Resilience Movement is where I'd put my rhetorical efforts if I was being paid to pontificate on the subject.

H. Deep-Green Activists are the people with whom I have the most in common, fundamental-values-wise.  But I think their number far too small.


I laugh at the people who think technology, a hard-nosed elite, a rationalist elite, or a kindly elite will step in to save us.  But in an era where people truly believe that their online projection is more valid, more "them", than their meatspace existence?  It's expected.  Not forgiveable.  But expected.

The problem is --and you can verify this with your local addict-- addictions shorten your life, no matter who you are.

Technological addiction may give the impression of lengthening your life because Big Rx and Big MD step in to prolong your life (at $25k/day on life support, etc), but if you really think that's living, then you've already died.


I would laugh also at the people who see this as the way our road forks:

There's something wrong with the image.  Can you tell me what it is?

Here's a hint.

It's the signpost.

The right side.

The second word.

That second word means the same thing as the two words on the left side.

The painter/creater of the image would like us to believe "progress" and "economic growth" are separable, that we can have "progress" of some nebulous sort while not having (inferentially, not explicitly) the "corporate" mandates and (explicitly) the ugly smokestacks of the left fork's endpoint.

What sort of progress can we achieve if we abandon the left fork's implied model?

Can you have "progress" and "sustainability" simultaneously?


If you can't see that sustainability requires giving up on the firm adherence to the essentialist nature of "progress", you're stuck.

I'd dare you to offer some definition of "progress" that is sustainable.

And I'd challenge you to see if you can't let go of your fixation on the need for progress.

I join this cackling avian joker when it comes to encountering progressives, leftist "intellectuals", misanders, feminists, alt-sexual and alt-gender "activists", bloggers, tweeters, politicians, businessmen, capitalists, consumerists, materialists, gentrifiers, organizers, soldiers, lackeys, sycophants, stooges, con artists, grifters, fans of mumblecore, people who like "artists" most when they have exotic names, and generally, 99% of humans I have encountered while stationed here on the national enclosure known as the Continental United States of America.

I had a music teacher somewhere in my early elementary school years who taught the class the old Aussie rhyme about the cackler above. Like many songs that had been around longer than the 1960s, it uses the archaic sense of the word that in 2014 defines Wee Glennie, Mincing Tarzie, Pedobear Sully and many other iconographic heroes of the buttfucking genre of human sexual and gender oddity: "gay."

The Aussies didn't mean that the kookaburra males spend all their time commenting on fashion with what they imagine as "withering" snark. No, they meant that the kookaburra must have a happy life if he laughs so much.

We know the meaning of the word has changed radicallyFN when today, a ready synonym for "gay" is "self-hating insecure dipshit who thinks his juvenile, fashion-oriented putdowns make him a valuable member of the human race." "Happy" is not a word I'd suggest as synonymous with the gay men who have followed me around the internet over the past decade, dropping their little gucci bags full of precious white himalayan kitty poop on my doorstep and doing the ring-the-doorbell-and-swish-back-to-my-purple-Pri(ap)us-honey! schtick.


FN -- Told you so! screams the corpse of Foucault from his dead gay "intellectual" grave.

why your child "tested out" on the autism spectrum

but the Evil Rethuglicans had a B-movie actor as their totemic hero!

So it's natural that a previously unemployed actor in amapornFN should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Gettin' buhizzzy with the cake, Jake!


FN - He sexted his stripper GF numerous times but before his latest gig, never acted for pay.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

observing reality = bigotry.

Having an opinion on something = bigotry.

If there's a TV show about gay men trolling for sex, the only valid reviewer opinion is that the show, and its characters, are heroically revelatory and insightfully brilliant in their depictions of a privileged, special niche of America.


Holy fuck, just read those comments after the review. 

Instead of saying the review lacks humor or meaningful description about the show, the commenters spend most of their time calling it "bigoted" because the guy reviewing didn't praise the show, its characters, or the topic of gay men trolling for sex.

Remind me:  what's praiseworthy about a show that spends its time worrying over whether 3 urban adults are succeeding in having sex with others as frequently as they'd like?

You have 15 seconds to formulate a defensible response.

snowing heavily. wait. is that ivory snow? is this a hollywood set?

Fast Eddie swears that it's news Unka Samm-well is doing what he's always done, and is doing what he's publicly admitted wanting and aiming to do.

It's not news, of course.

It's where the whole thing obviously has been going since 9/11/2001 gave us Total Paranoia About Terrorists.

Meanwhile, despite Fast Eddie's sales pitches, deals get inked to solidify the not news status of what Eddie swears is news.


I bet if you asked

Associated Press writer Stephen Braun in Washington, AP National Writer Martha Mendoza in San Jose, Calif., and AP Technology Writer Barbara Ortutay in New York

whether they were "surprised" by what Fast Eddie swears is "news," they would yawn then laugh a dry, retiring chuckle.

"Actually, I'm a brave genius and totally not an actor."

sympathy crutches

Enviable problem to have circa 2014:

"My child was diagnosed on the autism spectrum."


No your child is a raging shitbird because you raised him/her as Hands Off Parents who wanted to let their child Explore All Life Has To Offer -- Unhindered.


You know what children need:






Fill in the blanks, please.


Some people seem to think that love is the only thing kids need.  I guess in some small, extremely vague way, they are correct.  A child raised without love will not be a very useful or successful adult unless by "use" we consider the pinnacle to be sociopathic ends, and by "success" we consider such things as "taking by force and guile" et cetera.

I think the problem arises in how some parents overvalue love and overestimate the ways it is shown.

The most important thing kids need, in order to be functional as members of a human society, is a sense of their part-of-the-larger-picture jigsaw puzzle piece status.

Kids need boundaries.

Kids need to know that what they do affects others, and how what they do affects others.


The current era of Special Precious Snowflakes over-emphasizes the kid's selfish perspective and the exploration of all things that Special Precious Snowflake wants -- or, as often plays out, DEMANDS.

Parents who yield too much in this area will end up with a child who is uncontrollable.

Because they never set boundaries.

Presumably because they imagined setting boundaries to be oppressive or punitive or otherwise likely to stifle Special Precious Snowflake's extreme specialness and exemplary preciousness.


The state of autism used to be well-defined and relatively easily diagnosed.  The autistic child would be present, but not present.  Physically there.  But absent in the interpersonal dimension.

With the rise in profitability in Rx for behavioral categories of supposed psychiatric malady, it was inevitable that new diagnoses would arise.  Children who used to be "shy" would now be "social adjustment disorder" sufferers.  Children who used to be mid-grade spoiled brats would now be "oppositional defiant disorder" sufferers.

And children who were raging selfish beasts who weren't raised with good boundaries and a sense of placement in a larger whole, they would now be suffering a malady on the autism spectrum.

Because autism no longer is what it used to be.  It is now a spectrum that reaches all the way to the mildest sense of daydreaming inattentiveness, or spoiled-bratty refusal to comply.

Naturally in the modern era the "refusal to comply" is where the critical voices aim their scathe.  They will label the desire for compliance as some kind of fucked up slavery impulse.

They ignore the fact that it's not enslavement to tell Jimmy that he should not be stealing food off Jenny's plate.

They ignore the fact that it's not enslavement to tell Jenny that she shouldn't be stealing toys from Jimmy's stash and breaking them in front of him.

They ignore the fact that it's not enslavement to tell Jenny and Jimmy that when they're playing with other kids, they should not gang up on the other kids and beat them until they cry.


Your child does not have ASD.

Your child has stupidfuck progressive parents who think it's reactionary cruelty to set boundaries and stick to them.



It's not surprising to anyone who's read this dumbfuck blog for long that I don't admire, since it's largely a gay & metrosexual fashion journal pretending at intellectual hangout/resource.

"Ooooh honey, let's repair to the salon where we can lounge on the divan and elucidate our conundrums with perspicacity."FN


However, after writing the main complaint above, I went looking for articles under the search term "autism overdiagnosis."  One such article was at and it opened with a fairly useful paragraph:

I have followed William in my therapy practice for close to a decade. His story is a prime example of the type of brainy, mentally gifted, single-minded, willful boys who often are falsely diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder when they are assessed as young children. This unfortunate occurrence is partly due to defining autism as a “spectrum disorder,” incorporating mild and severe cases of problematic social communication and interaction, as well as restricted interests and behavior. In its milder form, especially among preschool- and kindergarten-age boys, it is tough to distinguish between early signs of autism spectrum disorder and indications that we have on our hands a young boy who is a budding intellectual, is more interested in studying objects than hanging out with friends, overvalues logic, is socially awkward unless interacting with others who share identical interests or is in a leadership role, learns best when obsessed with a topic, and is overly businesslike and serious in how he socializes. The picture gets even more complicated during the toddler years, when normal, crude assertions of willfulness, tantrums, and lapses in verbal mastery when highly emotional are in full swing. As we shall see, boys like William, who embody a combination of emerging masculine braininess and a difficult toddlerhood, can be fair game for a mild diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, when it does not apply.

The "William" in that paragraph could well have been me. That's a pretty decent description of me as a child. I think you could say that as I aged and experienced more ostracism because of the weird facets of my outlook and behavior, I developed a sense of sarcasm, a feel for irony, and a generally cutting idea of what is humorous.

After all, if putdowns were the coin of the childhood realm where I grew up, I figured there's no better way to be funny than to be really sharp with the putdowns and derisive observations offered.

The problem, then and now alike, was that even though most people spend a lot of time uttering putdowns, they don't really think your derisions are funny unless you agree with them on what should be eviscerated with arch comic surgery.


The "progressive" believes that insult comedy is fine, as long as the targets are "reactionary" or "cracker" or "Christian" or "Republican" or "misogynist" or "bigot" or "homophobe." In other words, the progressive is fine with calling Sarah Palin a stupid trailer trash whore who is a hypocritical redneck (teen daughter pregnancy -- should have got an abortion!) and too dumb to be VPOTUS, but is shocked when someone like me says Obama is the Mandingo myth used to advantage so that the Donkeys can provide terms 3 and 4 of Bush/Cheney.

The progressive is happy to snark haughtily at reactionary breeders who criticize Glenn Greenwald out of homophobic bigotry and jealousy of a gay man's success (sic), but is appalled when someone like me says the only reason Greenwald is famous is because he's gay.

The progressive is unable to see from all sides.

The progressive is highly selfish.

The progressive imagines him/herself brilliant, tolerant, open-minded, accepting, loving.

But in truth, the progressive has become confused:

* boundary-free "exploration" is seen as tolerance and love;

* victimizing protection of imagined special classes is seen as "acceptance" -- and is mandated!;

* sadistic or destructive behavior toward peers is seen as a special kind of brilliance.


The progressive's mad amounts of insecurity are covered up with what the progressive sees as "tolerance." Because the progressive fears that boundary-setting and -keeping is "authoritarian" and thus inconsistent with The Gentle Hippie turned Refined Hipster Adult's Communal Outlook of Tolerance, little Gaia Fried-Cantwell is given wide leeway to do whatever he likes when company is over. Gaia bites fingers and it's excused as "exploring his environment," Gaia kicks shins and it's waved off with "he's just showing his disdain for authority -- and that's healthy!", and worst of all, Gaia taunts all the other kids who are company, and whips out his pecker and pees on two of them. Hester Fried and Ferdinand Cantwell, little Gaia's parents, are quick to blame the other kids who got peed on for their provocations of Gaia's sensitive nature.

In all settings, Gaia's not to blame. The world is. For overwhelming Gaia.


In a reluctant visit to the public mental health facility's childhood and family counselor, the Fried-Cantwells are asked how they establish boundaries for Gaia.


"That's absurd. We don't want to stifle his growth."

The counselor says boundaries are important for a developing child. The Fried-Cantwells are shocked and terminate the session.

"What incompetence."

"I know, right? What should we expect from public facilities. Hardly an expert."


FN - That's my one-sentence satirical take on  Please read with a frilly blouse squad member in mind as the speaking character, sibilant S and rising sentence terminus to show elite gay/metro membership.

Monday, January 27, 2014

fat bag o' blubber

Super trendy 20earlyteens IT GIRL, Lena Dunham, is loved by everyone who looks outside themselves to determine what they should like/admire.

I've seen a few Lena Dunham movies and they sucked ass. Oh boy. Mumblecore. She's the female Duplass without the surname!

You know why her movies suck?

1) Shitty writing that could be done by any sad & lonely 13 year old girl who wasn't a member of the popular clique at school

2) Shitty acting that doesn't expand beyond the going-through-the-motions of the lonely 13 year old girl just mentioned

3) Absence of physical beauty, leading to absence of sexual magnetism, where Dunham is concerned


The idea being pitched to Dweeb Youngster Nation is, ugly fat 1-dimensional-personality self-hating girls are sexy too. Everywhere you look, there are involuntary celibate Dweeb Youngster Boys who would happily accept any vagina offered them -- and Lena's offering.

It's feminist.

It's empowering.

And it's radicalizing the Dweeb Youngster Nation.


By the way, if you've seen a Lena Dunham acting job, you know that the pictures of her in that linked article are testaments to the miracles of airbrushing, makeup artistry, and digital image enhancement.

Here's what Dunham actually looks like:

Actual unretouched image of Lena Dunham backstage

the morphable mister tar Z

Last night I saw The Talented Mr Ripley for the first time. The homoeroticism was thick and ugly, like having to walk 20 miles with a pantload of shit. I'm sure you poodleboys get good wank time with this movie, but I just found it kinda creepy.

At the same time, it seemed a natural role for Damon. And for the other actors/actresses too. Especially The Fat Dude With The Geek Name. You almost get the sense that TFDWTGN is a leisure class pampered fuckwad himself.

The best part for future reference, for me, was where Greenleaf tells Ripley that he's "boring." That's where the Tarzie of Ripley inverts to become the Tarzie of Greenleaf. So much homoeroticism, so much Tarzie. Tarzie then morphs into Gaybrit Hyphen-Dash and plays the refined poofter with verve and panache.

We'd like to give an Academy (of Dunces) Award to Tarzie for being so thoroughly gay and homoerotic, but unfortunately he was bested by Glenn Greenwald in a last-minute buoyancy infusion of cash and fame. Executive producer Pete O'Midyard will likely collect some 6th tier award for his saving role.

For gayness-everywhere and poodleboy tensions most of the time, The Talented Mr Ripley earns 0.001 of 5 stars and its thematic driver, the journalistically inclined, hand-on-cock Tarzie receives negative 1,000,000 out of 5 stars.

Stay tuned for the Con Artist Awards, where we have Tarzie and Greenwald running neck-and-neck in a human knot of sexual tension.


Also viewed last night was another Danish movie starring Mads Mikkelsen in which weird, fucked-up self-righteous feminists did their best at destroying Mikelsen's life and enjoyment.

Previously we saw the Collective Jack Crow Heroism destroy Mikkelsen in The Hunt.  This time we saw Jack Crow Feminism screw up Mikkelsen's life by hiding his fatherhood of a daughter, under the theme/argument that My Body My Say-So always controls for women.  Even where a woman can't get pregnant without a man's sperm donation.

The endless blogworld metaphors found in movies!  So many parallels to the biggest most obnoxious douchebags and asswipes of blogtopia.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

hurry up and heap disdain on "Christers" and "Crackers," you self-righteous Jewish leftist

Remember, religion is reactionary and retrograde and regressive.

Unless it's Judaism.

Remember, theocratic government is pigheaded stupid misogynist bigotry.

Unless it's Israel.

Remember, all the things that suck about religion, and about state+religion blending -- well, we just ignore them where Judaism and Israel are concerned.

Christianity = ignorance.

Judaism = pinnacle of human existence.

And let's not forget, it's the duty of every governmental entity, every subdivision, to "protect" and "promote" the theocratic thug-state called Israel, and to fellate and perform cunnilingus on Judaism as a concept and Jews as a people.

But don't forget to hate on the Christers.

And the Crackers.

Because you're special. Because you're a Jew. That makes you exempt from any problems you may cause others, and it excuses any thuggish, murderous, repressive behavior done by Jews, by Israelis, or by the state of Israel.

You're so special.

Don't forget to remind me!

the more bitter spite and childish scathe I see...

...or hear out there in the world, whether meatspace or e-space, the more I will devolve here.

Gauge the childishness, pettiness, selfishness, entitlement and narrowmindedness on display in the world by seeing how much I use here.

You don't notice it because mean-spirited, bigoted, childish, entitled, selfish bullshit is okay by you wherever it picks on the Hated Tribe.

Saturday, January 25, 2014

don't be such a reactionary, you luddite misogynist homophobe bigot

So now that everyone's attention is tuned into 140char "tweets" and 99% of "tweets" are 6th or 7th grade juvenile weak-sauce snark from a blossoming poodleboy, where does that leave literacy, writing skills, or depth of understanding?

2 years ago, the BlogTrust was alive with poodleboys strutting their bichon frise/frogpoodle stylings, using more than 140 characters at a time to tell us how being gay was fantastic and made them honorable, enviable, lords-of-everything geniuses.  Anyone who made fun of their poofty insularity and frilly blouse writing style was immediately accused of being a misogynist, homophobe, bigot reactionary.

And these are bloggers who considered themselves serious thinkers with a far-ranging expertise on many subjects, or at least on the subjects they chose to write about.

The writing may have been 7th grade at best, but at least there was some writing rather than snark-blasting, and at least there was a (failed) attempt to expand into a layer slightly deeper than
I know you are but what am I?
Ugly breeder shocked by men being gay, news at 11.
All straight men are homophobes.  Who knew?
All Xtians are homophobes, let's put them in Treblinka.


All of the above are truncated paraphrases of "insults" that various BlogTrust members or hangers-on uttered in my direction during the 2009-2012 timeframe.  Because they're so enlightened, well-educated, refined in manners and exquisite in tastes.

These haughty, self-impressed "intellectuals" show their refinement by saying things like "you're boring."

We can translate that phrase quickly:
I'm a floppy-wristed, frilly-bloused gay man who wishes he was Jackie Onassis, so rich she gets bored easily, so overwhelmed by so much leisure time.  I want badly to be an upper class woman who had a fabulous cotillion with the finest in food and drink, where I was introduced to society and lusted after by guys named Bink and Chipper.  Those preppy boys give me the biggest woody, honey.

I think the intolerance of self-impressed, think-I'm-a-stylish-genius faggots is high comedy.  Everyone must worship them and their testosterone+estrogen cocktail tastes, or be derided as uncouth, savage, homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted.  If you're not hurrying to praise a gay man on your next facebook update, your next tweet, or your next blog post -- then obviously, you're a homophobic reactionary misogynist bigot who has rape fantasies 24/7/365 and they involve raping women not men because raping men is okay by the faggot boys.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

crow shit

acidic, corrosive, mostly urea

and not really shit, more like lots of piss with a bit of shit

though people always talk about it as "bird shit"


If you're going to say you're doing an "anarchist critique," shouldn't you actually BOTH (1) understand anarchism, and (2) be an anarchist?

Where's the Fake Turk? I need his view on faking anarchism.

Where's Greenwald? I need his view on faking everything!

Oh never mind. Greenwald is writing that shit, Weiland is just the conduit.

the typical american family circa 2012

As of 2012, a typical American family is:

* 50-something single dad, successful author

* 20-yr-old college student daughter, also successful author, and precociously talkative with a vocabulary that sounds like it came from a 40 year old woman

* 16-yr-old HS student son, soon-to-be-successful author, obsessed with Stephen King and awkward around girls

* who live on the beach in a $1 million+ house

* and discuss sex openly, using the word "fuck" casually as in "do you care who I'm fucking, Dad?" said calmly not angrily

* dad has extremely scorching-hot fuck buddy who is late 20s/early 30s and also casual about discussing "fucking" as well as the dimensions of a "fuck-buddy" relationship

* daughter just walks up to guys at parties and says "do you want to fuck me or not, because I can't waste time talking"

* son is overpowered by fuck-happy 15 year old girl classmate who insists on fucking him in his closet as Xmas gift

* daughter abandons her I'll-fuck-anyone path when a nerdy classmate shows her The Kind and becomes his girlfriend when he reveals his mother has The Cancer


How the fuck do script deals, or concept idea deals, get closed in Follywood? I'd like to earn a few hundred thou on a hastily banged-out script. I could have written, and actually did write, a better script at age 19 -- though unlike Backpacky don't have Daddy's shekel-based and Temple-oriented Connections to sell my nascent and monetarily promising infamy to influential people.

The surreality of the above-described idea isn't shown as an absurdist or bizarre, twisted comedy. It's a sitcom turned movie, with all kinds of naivete about life being the script's driver. The story seems plausible if you're maybe 14 years old (COOL SHIT, when I'm 20 Lily Collins will just walk up to me and offer a fuck, and I'll live on the beach in a bitchin' house).

Maybe Follywood actually looks for ideas that will be plausible only to middle school students.

working with the Henry Louis Gates of Skyrim


Note: Shalidor = Glossy Karl


An essay fettered by pretense and academic prestige-striving sometimes buries a nugget.

Sometimes the nugget is Au and not iron pyrite.

The thought that our ‘identities’ are connected more to our data than our actual real bodily presence is part of the present horror of our own liquid society and culture.

The remainder shuffles around paying homage to people who said something, presumably because the author's individuality isn't expressed anywhere and isn't found anywhere besides. If you can't express yourself, at least quote or paraphrase others who appear, to you, able to express themselves. That's the crippling effect of an academic prestige focus -- you're not anything yourself, apart from your "expertise" in the work of another.

Wonder if he sees that.


The quote above makes sense if you contextualize "liquid" in the meaning of the whole entry, but if you're half-awake and a little smart (not tied to academia, in other words), you will understand "liquid" to mean what the "horror" and data vs bodily imply.

Extrapolated, projected, twitter-self, facebook-friend, blog-expert, instagram-Ansel.

You are what you tweet.


Remember, the most meaningful observations anyone can have, they're best expressed in a 140-character snark.

ethereal image marketing consultant

Being the generous soul that I am, I have been doing some image-making work in my free time.  I figure this will be helpful to both the Elephants and the Donkeys in the runup to


And here's my first product.

This is for Glenn Greenwald, in whatever position he finds himself placed w/r/t POTUS 2016.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

let me go on

like a reason in the sun


Hey Nick Gillespie, if you're going to mine my blog for ideas, why don't you offer me a job?  I may not be as deluded on the Power of Capitalism as you and the rest of your staff, but I can write better than all of you summed together then multiplied by 1,000.

No, you won't offer me a job.  Because you need to be Top Dog and can't be upstaged.

I understand.

Shit, if you let me write for your site, I might actually cause people to question the Power of Capitalism and the delusion that white collar crime and other forms of corruption are the fault of regulations and laws "meddling" with The Market.

Then your readership might revolt.  Or decline.

Which would piss off your advertisers.

Which would make you feel rice-dicked.

So I understand.  Point your writers in this direction.  Tell them to follow my ideas at present, and mine my blog for past ideas.

You know -- because none of y'all have your own self-starting idea generation, and not one of you knows how to write worth a fuck.


The entire world of on-line media, established and non-, is loaded with charlatans, thieves, cribbers, plagiarists, Yellow Kid Weils, and then below that multifaceted top layer is stuffed with insecure egomaniacs who need to prove to themselves that they're popular, cool, smart, hip, informed, or a member of the Winning Team.

Good job, humanity.

Letting yourselves down with a bang and a boom, yet again.

And congratulating yourselves for it.

Without irony.

Nice work.

sorry -- but not satire

The chipmunks have a new post where they pretend, for humor's sake, to be great fans of cheating in academics.

It's supposed to be funny.  You know.  Satire.  Meta-, and all that.

"We have inverted our stance.  That alone is funny."

Uh, nope.

Inversion alone will be funny if you're a funny person who naturally observes things with comic inflection and phrasing.

The chipmunks don't have natural comedy.  Dicky Dawkins might say they lack the comic gene.

Of course, if interrogated under oath and other forms of duress, they'd say their favor toward cheating is because they favor slow incremental change from within, and cheating allows a change from within of the hierarchies established at the academy.  It steals some small pittance of authority from those in authoritative positions.

Yes, that's quite funny.

Especially when you only are cheating yourself if you cheat in academics.


Chimchim would suggest he's "lampooning" what he imagines as "anarchists."

Payne can't help himself, he posts links to Python bits which don't really apply.

Al Paulzandry approves, with his usual grovel.

chompingzinc offers the biggest apollo-jism for ripping off one's self, learnin' wise, by saying cheating is humanist kindness in a pure expressed form.  He chucks in some disdain for "competitive" features of humanity -- as if he's not "competitive" when it comes to being a SuperAuthority on Leftism himself.  I suffered many stern corrective remarks (as he imagined them qualified) from seezee when I used to play in the Beaverbox.

Again -- we're supposed to find that schtick "funny" -- as some kind of satire.

I really don't think those fartsniffs and shiteaters know what funny is, and I'm sure they don't know what satire is.

They do, however, seem to have hipster (pseudo-)irony well in hand, and they seem to be stroking it for all they can muster.

I guess failed humor is all you have left when your world consists of a fantasy foundation and an oblivious working view.  When you're utterly clueless, but can tell yourself you're brilliant because of your Fancy Parchment, you really aren't even there.  You're like a ghost.

And not a scary one either.

What a fucking laugh.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

loretta, beretta, and meta-

Last night I watched The Cabin in the Woods, a "horror" movie that has a meta- (not literal, but sloppy hipster cliche'd "meta") take on "horror" and thus is supposed, sloppily, by hipsters everywhere to be some kind of "satire" on the horror genre.

If you like NPR, PBS, Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, Stephen Colbert, Glenn Greenwald, "tarzie," and Steve Carrell, you'll probably think Cabin is massively funny and impressively ironic.

If you think Will Ferrell a comic genius and fantastic actor, you'll probably want to just go buy a copy of Cabin and maybe a 2d copy as backup for when your first copy gets scratched or lost or whatever it is that happens when you're careless with something.  You will likely think this a revolution in horror, equivalent to The Blair Witch Project.  It's just about the nearest you'll find to the horror version of Karl Marx's written output.

On the other hand, if your brain isn't the equivalent of cold, weeks-old oatmeal, you will probably wonder how all those fucking idiots manage to see "irony" and "meta-horror" in a lame, stupid movie that is not funny, not scary, not cleverly satirical, and not all that entertaining.

The acting wasn't ridiculously bad, so I guess it's got that redemption.


The entire field of horror is ridiculous.  The more uptight a culture, the more grotesque are its horror forms of movie entertainment.

Have you ever watched Audition?

I watched it and nearly threw up several times during its playback.

Apparently it's a "feminist" commentary on how men objectify women, especially in the realm of dating.

Hah hah hah, it felt like earning a 4.0 for 140 credits toward a BA in Gender Studies at Harvard.  I learned so much.

Truly, the best way to help real misogynist men learn to change their ways is to make a horror movie that is Grand Guignol -- well, semi-GG at least.  All of the excess in nauseating violence, but none of the cartoonish comedic slant.

But then, I'm not a member of Japanese culture.

Which is made clear by the fact that I don't understand the loyalty-unto-death of ronin, the ritual of seppuku, the inflated importance of face, or the interest in eating many types of living organism that would never, ever occur to me as food items.  Nor the appeal of Shonen Knife.

Which probably makes me a reactionary where Japanese culture is concerned.




Still, I have watched some "horror" genre movies that I found interesting, entertaining, worth re-viewing.


Session 9

The Shining


Let the Right One In

When it comes to gore, monsters, demons -- you can keep your terrors. I'd rather have psychological horror.

futt the wukk?

What does it say about the "dissident" blog-tweet-journo world when the best criticisms of American domestic and foreign policies are coming from a Dollar-worshiping group of goofballs who think white collar crime exists because of too much regulation?

* Greenwald's your hero, but he's so fucking obviously a liar who is pitching a fat lie that you embarrass yourself by following, admiring, worshiping him.

* Glossy Karl, the only admired "leftist" pundit of the last 200 years, scares most of you -- but not because he wrote badly or had big blind spots, but rather because he wasn't totalitarian enough and didn't encourage people to identify and eliminate (or shame-blast) "reactionaries." Plus he actually encouraged thinking toward revolutionary changes, while you are terrified by those kinds of changes. On this point of fear regarding big social changes, mind the inconsistency problem with your hatred of "reactionaries" -- if you would, please.

* See Chris Hedges for an example of what I'm talking about w/r/t fear of big change.

* Everything you dislike on the landscape is reduced to blaming reactionaries and pointing fingers backward at Bush/Cheney or Reagan/Bush or, if you're really old and especially deluded by the Camelot Myth, back as far as Nixon/Agnew.**

The biggest issues, in your feeble mind, are (1) whether hypersensitive, eager-to-be-victim gays and lesbians feel offended by misinterpreted remarks made in an interview of a Southerner who says he follows Xtianity;*** or (2) whether Bradley/Chelsea Manning is a hero/ine because of open admission of gender confusion and not because of anything Manning actually did that told anyone anything useful about supposed hidden chicanery in Unka's operations.

You choose those issues because they let you divide from "reactionaries" and feel superior in that split. If there's an issue that affects a wide grouping of American citizens, you'll ignore that one because then you may have reason for commonality with the hated "reactionary" and that simply will not do.


I find it amusing that 10% of the population deserves more admiration, protection, audience than 100% of the population.

Please remember to wear your team jersey.

Who do you support? Denver Broncos or Seattle Seahawks?

Which team has more openly gay players?

Which team would the Koch Bros endorse?

Who is Ann Coulter rooting for?

Which team's players' wives "entertain" in the most rarefied fashion, with artisanal kitchen gadgets and Raw Food Movement recipes?

Who wears the most stylish shoes?

Whose uniform generally is more tasteful?

Most importantly, who has the greatest number of twitter followers?


**Defenders of the Camelot Myth may be found commenting as a hive mind at Chris Floyd's. Add in some bat-blind commentary putting all blame on Bircher reactionaries,FNFN and hoary, zz top-bearded hangabouts who still blame Nader and other non-DNC stooges for spoiling the otherwise guaranteed Donkey POTUS victories in 2000 and 2004.

***Fungible replacement issues include getting violently angry over what a shift manager says at the local Chick-Fil-A on topics of gender or sexuality, or getting misty-eyed at Jason Collins saying he's gay while previously wanting to tell Tim Tebow to shut the fuck up about his religion.


FNFN Fuck's sake, are you actually fooled into believing that's a Grandmother named Sheila? You really are naive.

Monday, January 20, 2014


Technosymbiosis + Eyes Everywhere + Totalitarian Urge + Desire to Kill Other Tribes' Members (Who Are Breeder Misogynist Homophobes Cuz We Said So)


Eeekwul ryteth thwoo Thekyoowitty

Hah hah hah hah hah

but prolly not a surprise to Hanzer Homosexuals

Saturday, January 18, 2014

it's out there

...twisting in the wind.

Government officials want to shoot Fast Eddie Snowjob in the melon!

Well, that's sure proof he got damaging data. Look at what he's "revealing"! Unka Samm-well has access to your digital information and can see what you email, text, tweet, comment on the Toobz! Unka gets your medical info without trying! Unka knows what kind(s) of porn you view on your eyeFone tablet laptop desktop etc!


Where did you think this was going when Boy Genius Zuckerberg teamed up with Unka? When the boys of BackRub teamed with Unka? When all the telecom providers teamed with Unka even after Verizon's initial Heisman move?

Most of you were rejoicing in the new Cloud Computing advantage of technosymbiotic unification with The Machine. Too busy whiz-banging to the new digitoy. You didn't bother, or didn't mind, seeing the path it was taking.

And now you're stunned, temporarily blacked-out, by the prospect of all the digerati happily pairing up with HomSec and Feebs and spookintel multicellular state entities?

What's most amusing is how you think yourselves worldly, intellectual, and most of all, dissident critics!


Fast Eddie may as well have taken "secret data" that show people are mindless stooges of consumerist technolust. Or data that "prove" you need to ingest calories and nutrients and water in order to avoid death from starvation/dehydration.

Sideways 8 not spelled correctly.

massed? kissed? what is this, church?

A true glutton for the labors of Sisyphus, I just spent 3.5 hrs reading old (2006 back to 1976) reviews by Bobby Krizzagoo.

The most remarkable thing about his reviews is his White Liberal Guilt perspective, which is almost funny given his frequency of mentioning religious, and especially Catholic, guilt.  Bobby never omits a swipe at an imagined reactionary, a dreamed-up sexist, an envisioned misogynist, a fabricated Cracker.  He stretches out impressively to heap praise on non-White people whose crass commercialist doo-doo should trigger apathy if not scorn.  If someone comes from a rural or small-town perspective, and they're not The Boss, they get this:

I, Robert Christgau, piss on your lack of urbane sophistication.

Most of his off-hand sociopolitical scathe reads like Hugo Schwyzer, "sensitivity" ploys designed to keep his dipstick well into the oil.  Not too unlike most "progressive" men who run around the InterWebToobz looking for "misogyny" wherever they can fabricate it, to prove their deeply and solidly built basement + foundation of feminism.

I admire his occasional pith, but there are too many Show-Off Progressive opportunities taken.  But I admit, the medium known as twitter is the kind of place where Bobby could end up the King he's always wanted to be.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

rejoice! sanctioned "dissidence" is mainstream!

Jeremiad Cavedweller's got an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary.

What's next?  Greenwald for POTUS nomination 2016?

Sprytel gets chimp poo all over himself when trying, artlessly and without deft coordination, to fling it at another

I was just reading a series by the obviously clever, but far too self-impressed and way too onanistic-for-the-camera Mencius Moldbug, when I ran across The Crowtard (mtraven) and Sprytel J Chimchim (Michael S) flinging their shit at each other.

Both primates are knuckledraggers who think their eidetic memory and cut-and-paste prowess proves them somehow superior.  Name-dropping (Crowtard) and foreign-phrase-placing (Chimchim) are their respective giveaways on the sadly massive insecurity traits in their respective noggins.

I've watched Crowtard piss on Chimchim at Simulated Beavers before, and even joined in, though more with words than urine or feces.  I like that my grains-level offerings piss off the two pretentious fucktards.  I don't use enough syllables, enough name-dropping of luminaries, or enough greek phrases to merit either dipshit's honor-roll-naming.

Both Chimchim and Crowtard are eager to name me as "reactionary" and Crowtard especially is quick to think me a "libertarian."  Of course this reveals both fraud-positers as the cement-headed This-or-That-and-Only-This-or-That thinkers they are.  With me or against me.  And riot of riots is in the fact that both preening simians are "leftist" Marx-worshipers who ought to have commonality, but instead create division solely for the chance to one-up each other with non-witticisms.  Both imagine themselves wits (Chimchim a fantasy of being Oscar Wilde, Crowtard a wish toward being some modern era hack pseudo-comic whose claim to funny is being a "progressive" who scathes Evil Rethuglicans), neither is funny.


In this series I've read 3 entries.  Moldbug's writing is too show-offy, and that label sticks on him where it doesn't on, say, William Gaddis.  (I'm even embarrassed for Gaddis's memory to see the comparison on a page.)  The comment threads are where sometimes the meaningless meander gets distilled to good debate.

Throughout the 3 comment threads there's a decent back-and-forth between Crowtard and Chimchim.  Crowtard does his usual schtick of hot-headed and smug condescension combined with accusing everyone who disagrees with his On-Paper Expertise and pasting them with "reactionary" and then launching into a Billy Sunday sermon on the horrors wrought by "reactionaries" in America since the dawn of the 20th C.  Chimchim lays back into his Fadduh Smiff pose of reclining intellectual (like Wm F Buckley Jr on Firing Line) calmly offering Hahvahd/EmmEyeTee assumed superiority.  It's a bit reminiscent of Mossad asset Chomsky.

The back-and-forth between them is mildly funny and almost looks like what Jon Schwarz aims for, but never achieves -- Schwarz being decidedly unfunny because his "humor" is that of a now-privileged Jewish boy who did good with his Ivy degree and thus gets to hobnob, bad-comedy-wise, with the WASPs he grew up envying, and it picks on easy targets from a highly partisan, pro-state perspective.

As one of the poodle-boys would say, "boring."

Here's a good distillation of the dynamic between Crowtard and Chimchim in the Moldbug comment threads.  The commenter I'm quoting here is TeeGeeGeePee, who once used to visit here and leave the occasional comment until he, like most, found me too dirt-eater / grease monkey / uncouth to continue reading.

If anybody really enjoys these, you can find Michael S harassing me anonymously on my blog.

He can just be naturally annoying, he was hardly "harassing" you. As prior readers may have guessed, I do not think much of people who comment anonymously while expecting people to respond to their statements. It is simply bad blog etiquette, and if you can't be bothered to sign-in with a username, put a signature at the bottom of your comment or note in a later comment that you made the previous one(s).

Michael S:
My tone towards you, both here and there, has been entirely civil.

Bull-fucking-shit. "empty-raving" and all that. Your civility is entirely faux, you openly state delight in "getting under his skin", though in doing so you exaggerate your accomplishments, in my impression


From the idle-rich Mencius Moldbug's series, "Open Letter to Progressives", part 4.

Note this was done in May 2008.  I was blogging back then under some other handle, some other blog -- my 3d or 4th blog in the timeline of blogs I've had since 2004 or so.  Might have been cancer logic.


As a general observation of the problem with those dipshits who used to think I was one of their clique because I didn't always pick on them, I can say this.

They seem to over-emphasize the trivial details they found so crucial in memorization work toward gaining parchments and defending theses.  And their regurgitation of these noise-points supposedly establishes them as "important" thinkers because, shit, they can puke up the lore like any doxologist who has memorized the melody well enough to lead the choir.

They remind me of the bench-racers I knew as a gear-head.  When someone's car was wheezing rather than working at maximum cardiovascular efficiency, these bench racers would suggest something that showed they'd memorized some small but important component in the overall process of turning gasoline, oxygen and electric spark into forward movement.

"Oh, you've got misfires in the upper RPM reaches?  Have you checked your power valve?"

"No, not the power valve you dumb shit.  I bet he's got a bad distributor drive gear."

"You morons.  It's obviously the fact that his clutch power plate has one spring that's weaker than the others."

Meanwhile, the problem is water in the gasoline.  But they wouldn't check that first, because it's not esoteric enough.

When you're talking to a friend who doesn't see things clearly on the sociopolitical problems front, regaling that friend with details of feudal Japan and contrasting that to the USSR's glory days isn't going to help your friend see more clearly.

It may, however, get your friend to start thinking you're a fucking blowhard who only knows how to show off while imagining yourself a brilliant teacher.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

spirit of the crow

Not the bird.

The blogger. 

The one who thinks himself Protector of Women and Obliterator of the Patriarchy.


I suggest you watch The Hunt, a Danish movie made by Thomas Vinterberg.

Pay close attention to the heroic extrapolators of victimhood.

See how they ruin an innocent man's life.

And remember how The Crowbar likes to accuse people of being misogynists driven by rape fantasies.

That's funny, right?


Internet image-masters really enjoy their attacks, their lies, their faux-expertise shown by parrotting others, or cutting-and-pasting, or pretending at being the Sole Scholar in some rare field of inquiry.

We at UNSF are proud to have endured lying accusations from Jack Crow, and we pity the poor little fucktard who is compelled to utter such lies as a way to avoid culpability for his own abuse of women, girls, boys, and men over the course of his lifetime. 

Maybe some day, Crowbar will tell us how he kicked a dog to death.  For not being a cat.

it's ...uh... what's that word? ...suttle? scuttle? subtitle?

Twitcher Bunnyram, doing what he does best -- selling, by helping you feel like a badass.  Selling, not on the virtues of the product's actual advantages, but on the image you'll project if you have the product:

Snobbery might be the only reason for top bike-handlers to pass up Bontrager's Super Enduro Carbon wheelset.

In other words:

You know who uses carbon rim bike wheels?

Top bike-handlers.

If your bike sports carbon rims, that will definitely suggest you're a top bike-handler.

Buy these wheels to help present the image of top bike-handler.

That's what makes you, as a MTB rider, more valued, more interesting, more impressive.

The image.

Sell that image, beeeeeyotch.

Get those carbon rim wheels, have the LBS install them, take the bike home, put it in front of your sofa, take a picture, put it up on zuckbuck to prove you're a top bike-handler.

Thank you, fuchsiabike, for telling everyone how to become a top bike-handler.

because I'm a misogynist, and because I promote The Patriarchy and endorse Gender Oppression

...I give you this video.

I had a girlfriend in 1992 who was a wee bit loopy. At that point in her life, her truest role model was Marianne Williamson, and her biggest life goal was to reunite her family (mother, father, brother, self) in a new construct that rejected each person's patterns, habits, foibles and issues. The more she pursued this ideal family reunion goal, the more I asked her what were the origins of the family's imperfections, what were the practical problems she sought to cure. From the descriptions she gave me of her mother, brother, father I could sense what each of them had as issues/flaws. And the more I talked with her about this family reunion ideal, and A Course in Miracles, the more I saw how her own perspective was fractured and laden with blind spots.

Every single human has blind spots about his/her flaws. Every single one of us. That's how we go on with our lives and don't all commit suicide. We deflect. We distract ourselves. We dissemble where we're made to see our problems. We ignore. And we project.

Sometimes people create rationalizations to get them through tough spots. Humans are intelligent, even the ones who you'd call "special needs" or "intellectually challenged" or, in the lingo of my childhood, "mentally retarded." Creative imaginations dwell within each of us, though some of us have more practice using them.


This particular GF from the early 90s I'm talking about above, she fastened onto Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning after she'd been through the Course in Miracles stuff. She praised Frankl's book up, down, sideways, backward, inside-out. I got a copy and read it through. It's not a long book. Frankl tells us of being in a concentration camp and how he saw others give up and basically choose death even if they didn't have to die. From that perspective -- survivor vs death urge -- Frankl's book kept my attention. But only from that perspective. Otherwise, I saw his book merely as one person's method of retaining the survivor urge in the face of the death urge. I didn't see anything universally applicable from Frankl's book, and I wouldn't build a perspective or philosophy around the book.


I wrote all the above without watching the embedded video past the first 47 seconds. I only know it's about Frankl's book because of the video title in HughTewb, and because she mentions it in those first 47 seconds.


In retrospect, I see that GF from the early 90s as a very troubled soul.  In the collection of moments during our relationship she was a whirlwind of destruction who always chose trying to emasculate me over seeing her own flaws. Honest discussion was impossible with her. Everything was self-defense, blamecasting, other-crushing rationalization from her.

I should have been able to see this, but as the old cliche runs, love is blind. Having been that sightless man, I know how the cliche retains durability.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

but Sue d'Ochridec says it's about editorial power struggles

You would too, if your schtick was pretending to criticize OCL while serving to keep OCL's name and Personal Brand in the eye/ear/mouth/mind of everyone you know.


OCL once tried to leave a snarky comment for me where he suggested I'd been "disbarred" for improper conduct.

I found that strange, given its flat untruth, but interesting as a clean example of how OCL projects all of his flaws onto anyone who dares to expose his fake "expert" status, his phony "constitutional lawyer" status, his bogus "governmental policy professional" status, his con-man "digital information security specialist" status.


As I've said before, OCL once had a discussion with me at UnBrained FairyStory where he steadfastly insisted that all of America's problems under Bush/Cheney were due to Evil Rethuglican Machinations, which were overpowering the Noble Donkeys Attempting To Fix America.

After I left a handful of comments including links demonstrating the Donkeys' complicity, OCL edited the comments thread to remove all discussion involving my posts.

He did this on a second occasion, where in his primary essay he ripped into Hugo Chavez, calling Chavez a CIA plant and toady of US business interests on the Evil Rethuglican side of things.  When I challenged him for evidence on those assertions' truth, he simply said "his boyfriend" knew "intimately" about Chavez's terrible practices.  I then asked how a Brazilian knew so much about Venezuelan practices.  I expected OCL to say his boyfriend was Brazilian by birth, but had lived in Venezuela under Chavez.  But no.  OCL just got shrill and snide, and huffy because I didn't believe the "truth" offered as pillow talk from his boyfriend.  We went back and forth on Chavez, with OCL saying that Chavez was so bad, his own citizenry had tried to assassinate him.  I replied that it was a CIA black bag job, not a clean insurgent attempt.  OCL denied this with more foot-stamping anger.  Eventually, as with the prior thread concerning Democrat complicity, OCL removed all discussion related to my posts.

On a third occasion, OCL was complaining about the neocons and so I engaged him on what he knew about the neocons, and asked if he ever consulted neocon thinktank publications for ideas on what the neocons publicly admitted aiming toward.  As usual, he was evasive and non-committal on his sources of his supposed political savvy/wisdom.  I asked what he knew about Project for a New American Century.  He told me he wasn't aware of them.  I gave him a link to the PNAC website.  He replied that PNAC was not real, that it was a bogus website.  I gave him a link to the PNAC white paper, Rebuilding America's Defenses.  He told me it was as fake a document as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

At this point I told him that he was a gigantic fraud, pretending to be well-read and well-experienced in the areas of government and political policy on which he wrote essays.  That's when he banished me from UnBrained Fairystory.  And, as on 2 prior occasions, he deleted all references to my comments and all of my comments as well.


At this point in 2005-06, I had already determined that Greenwald was a fraud -- that he was a money-men's opinioneering conduit, paid to write things that control people's perceptions, paid to direct people toward bogus conclusions.

When I saw how his authorial persona was sold in the introduction of How Would A Patriot Act?, I knew this was a shitbird op.  He was billed as a constitutional lawyer (when there is no such thing), a "civil rights" expert (when his blogging showed no such expertise), and a "scholar" of national security related politics (when, as said above, he repeatedly showed naivete and wrong thinking in that field).

He's none of those things, of course.

Why does and did he lie so extensively about himself?

I think it has something to do with this, something I just ran across while investigating 4th and 5th Amendment liberties infractions in the post-9/11/2001 era.

In 2003 the New York City Bar rendered an advisory guidance opinion regarding a lawyer's improper recording of a person's telephone conversation.  In the course of that opinion, several authorities are cited.  One of the authorities is Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548, 557 n.5 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

What is that Anderson case?  Well, it's the case that serves as the basis for OCL pretending to be a "constitutional lawyer" and "civil rights expert."

What happened in that case?

OCL was nabbed for improperly recording conversations, while functioning as a lawyer.  In other words, he didn't improperly record people who talked to him at his home telephone number.  He wrongly recorded people from his business phone, in his law office.


OCL has tried to weasel out of his being caught in unethical practices.  He argued at a later date that he was justified in his unethical behavior because there was a "split" in the rule interpretation.

The only specific example I've ever seen raised in support of this innuendo was a 2001 ruling on the propriety of my tape recording of a witness which arose in a First Amendment free speech case I litigated in defense of a white supremacist church. When I was in my office in New York (where tape recording witnesses was permitted), I interviewed a witness by telephone who was in Illinois (where tape recording witnesses was not permitted). There was a split in legal authority on which rule applied: the rule of the jurisdiction where the recorder was physically located, or where the witness was physically located. The American Bar Association had expressly ruled that surreptitious tape recordings of witnesses by lawyers was permitted.

I took the position that New York rules should apply and the other side took the position that the Illinois rules should apply. The district court judge - 12 years ago - ultimately ruled that Illinois rules applied, but made expressly clear in his written opinion that this was a mere standard legal dispute with reasonable views on both sides, not a question of whether anything unethical had been done:....

This is why I say that instead of honest brokerage, he gives us 3-card Monte.


An ethical lawyer doesn't look for loopholes to exploit. That's the essence of unethical behavior. Especially when the loophole is manufactured just as an excuse to engage in the unethical behavior.

An ethical lawyer keeps his nose clean.

An unethical lawyer always has shit, dirt, piss, jism, blood, counterfeit money ink, cocaine, meth on his nose.

Unethical lawyers can be funny. Sorta. In an entertainment vehicle, like a book or movie. Or video game.

But in truth, they're just the Ubernerd version of someone who cheats in sports, and not just in pickup or casual sports, but in serious organized sports where titles, glory, trophies, and possible scholarships are on the line.

They're like blood dopers in cycling.  Like Lance Armstrong.  Including the lying denials history Armstrong has.


Think about that landscape I've just described for you. 

Ask yourself:

Why would OCL deny Democrat complicity in the post-9/11/2001 era, especially in the civil rights assaults that were the subjects of OCL's first two books?

Why would OCL characterize Hugo Chavez as the exact opposite of what he was, and why would OCL lie about the CIA's role in Venezuela during Chavez's leadership?

Why would OCL lie about the neocons, deny the existence of PNAC, and claim that the PNAC website and its numerous white papers were fraudulent -- especially when the focus of his writing was to demonize the GOP power base under Bush/Cheney and its various financial and ideological influences?

And how do those patterned displays of dishonesty dovetail with his new gambit working for Omidyar?

Ask yourself.

If you have the balls.

glitter disco synthesizer night school

Monday, January 13, 2014

is it twoooo?

Could explain a lot about why there's a disconnect between smart humor, and smart choices of values aimed at maximizing individual liberty.

Once again we are at

An acquaintance of mine is about $10 million in the red with all of his restaurants. Outstanding places to eat, but just not profitable.

Really? Tell us more. Explain.

The guy I know paid $9 million for an ocean view location, probably spent close to another million renovating, hired celebrity chef(s), and had a whole bunch of other expenses before ever opening his doors. I don't know what he was thinking. I had the best meal of my life at the place, but I fully expect the property to be bank owned soon...

If you are pals with someone who just willy-nilly throws $10million at a hoped-for "success" (not losing money), then either:

(a) You are doing the usual thing of lying on the internet, or

(b) Your friend is obnoxiously rich if able to treat $10million as I would treat $10.

I don't automatically condemn anyone who can piss away $10million, but in this case, I am 99.999% certain that I'll condemn that person.

Of all the things you can do with $10million, spending it to create a sure failure seems counter-productive, especially if your primary motive is profit, and the main driver of your life is to make money thereby amassing more money through which you gain more power relative to others, which frees you to a greater degree.

Just pissing that money away on a restaurant (a trifling luxury) is pretty much the opposite of amassing money to maximize freedom.  In fact, it looks a lot like the kinds of garish, show-offy displays of just-gained-riches we expect to see from All Hat, No Cattle city slicker phonies.


More importantly, the thread from which the quotes come will show, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that has only one driving motive, and that is obscene wealth: its current possession and, among the less fortunate who lack it presently, the powerful ambition to have and spend such obnoxious amounts of money.

And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that their ambition is so overwhelming that they do not care what or whom gets injured by the pursuit, possession or spending of such wealth, and further, that their callousness is never more obviously shown than by the contrast of that apathy toward others' injuries, while also stating that they want to maximize the freedom to do whatever they wish, as long as they harm nobody else.

We remain amused by their re-definition of "harm" (much like Ron Bailey re-defines "science") to eliminate all situations where someone actually gets injured in any way.

Harm actually means the absence of harm, and the absence of harm actually means repeated harms that never let up.

ye got yer red chipmunks, ye got yer blue chipmunks

The Simulated Beavers are famous for always retreating into their Proud Marxist Meliorists burrows whenever they have to entertain the big question of "change from within, versus change from without."

Chitter-chitter-chitter... but the economic analysis of labor studies and David Graeber's books and some whinging, wheezing old "anarcho-syndicalist" Mossad asset MIT Prof Emeritus suggest we should always work for change from within by mocking the centrist, DINO donkeys from a haughty perch atop a whiter-than-white tour d'ivoire.

One of the things the Chipmunks think themselves so great for being/doing is being not right wing / doing not right wing stuff.

As meliorists, they are proud of the microtome-sliced margin of difference between the Donkey and the Elephant, and use that difference discerned via electron microscopy as the solid foundation for their pontifications on why the Marxist Meliorist view has the best footing.

Remember: seize the reins of the state, then convert the state. Winning formula, Marxist Meliorist style.

You know what?

You know who else thinks like that?

Those fucking free-market-worshiping, right-wing-adhering libertarians at

Watch, as they argue in both the linked essay and the comments thereafter, for Change from Within.
Professor Chomsky receives a "gift" from Israel.

the flail, the misdirection, the ignorance, the pose

We interrupt your attention's interest in feeling victimized and insulted by our provocations on sociopolitical matters, and turn instead toward the winter sport of sliding down a hill on two planks, with fixed heels rather than soul-core-brah telemark setup.


You ever ski "crud"? You probably do. You're smart enough and athletically heroic enough to read this blog, so you probably ski crud.

If you live in the midwest, south, southeast, mid-atlantic, northeast then you have "crud" that is little more than 1" of groomer-cat debris otherwise fouling your pristine groomed carpet of snow.


In the deeper-snow areas where ungroomed snow regularly is 6" or more in depth, crud is a real phenomenon that requires a different approach and a higher level of skill refinement. That 1" of imperfection in other parts of the nation may be called "crud," but that's only because the insecure, emasculated dweebs skiing those conditions want badly to be considered Real All Mountain Skiers.

In the mandmade&groomed-snow-focused parts of the country, "crud" is the same thing as groomed snow. It just looks slightly different. You ski it the same exact way you'd ski the groomed pristine carpet.

Where crud is a real phenomenon and the consistency of the snow varies from mashed potatoes to confectioner's sugar to whipped cream to cream cheese to baby powder to cotton candy to rock candy, all in one run, and sometimes all in the same turn -- you know you're in crud. This is a different game from the Slightly Less than Pristine "crud" the manmade groomed snow skier complains about. The manmade groomed snow skier doesn't even have a clue what crud is, to be honest.

But on the internet, where everyone has to appear as World-Beater All-Time Badass at Everything, the pristine groomer skier can't admit he skis the easiest condition conceivable and mistakenly is thinking himself as mastering crud. He's not. He's just mastering a fantasy about himself.

Which is what most internet commenters are doing when they leave comments on the internet. They're being a fictionalized, idealized version of themselves. If their real self is, say, 46% of the way to where, from the view at age 21, they hoped to be when at Life's Peak -- then the Internet Version of that same self will be 125%. So accomplished that expertise was reached long ago, and thus so experienced that condescension is a default perspective.

Because the truly gifted and accomplished are always condescending. That's the defining feature of natural talent -- acting as if everyone else is an idiotic hack loser.


I turn to my "progressive" and "liberal" friends, and they are nodding in full agreement.


Skiing gets discussed at various places around the internet.  One such place is EpicSki.

This morning I found a thread discussing crud skiing.  Here are a few gems from that thread.

In crud you cant tip to turn because there is no solid even base to push against and bend the ski and ride the sidecut.

The idiocy of this comment is astounding. The only snow that fits his description of "no solid base" etc is blower featherweight powder on top of a firm-set or frozen base. In that situation, the new snow deceives you by its reported or measured depth, but you simply sink through it and ride on top of the firm/frozen snow beneath.

In every other "crud" condition I can imagine, I have been able to make whatever kind of turn I wanted to, within the crud itself. First task of the crud skier is to do some slow-speed straight-run up/down bounces to get a feel for the amount of support the day's conditions will give you. That feedback will give you a base of comparison on the continuum of frozen hardpack <--------> blower feather powder.

I can tip to turn in crud with out jumping.....but then again I can use platform and not sidecut to make crud turn because I am actually on modern skis

If you know how to ski crud, you can use either platform or sidecut exclusively, or you can use a blend of the two, and it has nothing to do with being on "modern" skis. It has to do with your ability to ski. People skied crud athletically, aggressively, smoothly, and proficiently on skis designed in the 1990s, on skis designed in the 1970s, on skis designed in the 1940s. The further back you go in ski design progress, the more it depended on skier skill.

Don't think about tipping, think about balancing on the middle of your boot-mark and ski and turning your femurs in the hip sockets. Your will skis will find the appropriate edge.

What? Turn femurs in hip sockets to accomplish the crud turn?

Maybe if your ski is the Spatula.

Not likely if you are on what 99% of people are skiing on.

And further, 99% of skiers can't turn their femurs in their hip sockets and never have had occasion to do that in any context outside your stupid PSIA-manual gobbledygook misunderstanding of application propriety.

The femur rotation move is best used when on or in snow that allows skis to freely pivot around their center, and when on skis whose primary method of redirection is a pivoted turn made from their middle. If you suggest this absurdity to 99% of skiers having trouble in crud, you'll make them regress in skill and quality of experience.

Unless you exclusively teach students with dull edges and reverse camber plus Spatula design (wider underfoot than at tips/tails).

Jesus. Everyone a pro, nobody a pro. Empty rhetoric. Cut and paste. Sound expert, don't BE expert.

Migraine territory.


You want to ski crud more proficiently?  Two options.

1) Buy a reverse camber ski and dull its edges. Work on pivoty-turns where you feel like your feet are on a lazy-susan styled turntable and you're imitating Chubby Checker doing the Twist.

 -------->  This option limits you severely, because you now have a pair of skis that are useless on firmer snow unless you are in the 0.0003% of skiers who trained throughout their childhood as an alpine racer and thus are perfectly centered 99.997% of the time they are moving downhill.  But if you ski wetter, deeper crud nearly all the time you're on the hill, it could be a winning strategy.  NOTICE:  this is the technique implied by those who talk above about femoral rotation, or "modern" skis.

Re-purposed, for learning how to ski on "modern" skis.

2) Learn how to ski.

-------->  This option takes time, dedication, focus, a wee bit of natural athletic talent, some good coaching assistance (for feedback and direction).  However, this is the way people skied crud proficiently on long, skinny, big-radius-sidecut skis that dominated the manufacturer's output at nearly all historic points prior to the early/mid 2000s.  It pays more dividends in all aspects of your skiing.  But it takes some effort.


If we were talking about sociopolitical commentary on the internet (including twitter), method (1) above would be the one where people cut-and-paste, or otherwise parrot, some dunce pundit that supposedly is an "expert" -- and no independent assessment ever is made, no ability to make that assessment exists, and the entire episode is superficial, hollow, and basically fraudulent.

The number of people who use method (2) would be under 1%.