Monday, May 30, 2016

oh that's just my haemorrhoids, everyone who's 56 has them

Can I please point the fuck out that the 2008 Democratic POTUS campaign was FAR more bitter and divisive than 2016 and if Hillary Clinton loses to Trump in November the fault is she's motherfucking Hillary Clinton.

Certainly. You can point out all kinds of things that suggest in 2008 and 2012 you were not banging drums for Donkeys and heaping disdain on Elephants as truest culprits on the cause of your life's anxieties.

Why not remake history? You have the opportunity, seize it!

Be the fucking flea, Jeffrey!


-- Harold Caidagh, who wonders when Chalupa's bunghole will go beyond surface capillary haemorrhage, and begin bleeding profusely, thanks to that French bulldog named Binny who has been humping the Chalupa bunghole for 40 years. Chalupa must have a lifetime supply of K-Y and Astroglide, more than Gaylord Perry even.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

jughead yesterday, archie today, reggie tomorrow!

Toni Basil phoned in a suggestion that we UNSF'ers take a look at the parallels between Michael J. Smith's latest entry, and John MICHAEL Greer's latest.

We can see Mickey slipping persona in this awkward non-segue of styles:

To be fair to the students, they’re not the only ones who have redefined the purpose of a university education in a way that, for the sake of politeness, we’ll call “quirky.” Radical faculty members, who encourage this reenactment of their vanished youth as a political equivalent of Münchausen syndrome by proxy, are doing much the same thing. Then, of course, you’ve got corporations who think that universities are places where prospective employees go to pay for their own job training, university bureaucrats who bubble marketing-firm sewage about offering students the “university experience,” and so on through an entire galaxy of self-regarding and self-important cant. The one thing that finds no place among all these competing redefinitions is, predictably enough, learning.

I’ve mentioned before on this blog the need to devise new opportunities for learning, and in particular a new structure for adult education that isn’t subservient to the increasingly blatant political and financial interests of the academic industry. More broadly, the concept of learning has been a core theme of this blog since it began—partly because modern industrial society’s stunning inability to learn the lessons of repeated failure looms so large in public life today, partly because learning ways to make sense of the world and practical skills for dealing with the converging crises of our time ranks high on the to-do list for anyone who takes the future seriously. I think, therefore, that it’s time to move that discussion to center stage, and talk about learning and education in the context of the Long Descent.

Two entirely different writers, two completely different styles, but you think it's the same thing because "John MICHAEL Greer" has taken credit for what "Mike Flugennock" wrote in the first of the above two paragraphs.**

If Mr Greer actually had visitors, they would notice the swing between Jughead in the 1st paragraph and Archie in the 2d, and would notice the more glaring point of actual heat behind the words in 1st paragraph where Archie never, ever, ever uses heat and always uses obfuscating references back in time to some obscure Oswald Spengler or Baron von Munchausen paraphrase or made-up quote.

But there are no commenters at Archie's Treehouse. They're all Mickey, Mike, J. Mike, Mike J., Miguel, Michel -- meshuggenahs to a name.

Also, once again requiring close reading, but inside Archie's newest there's very strange copycatting of the "Platty" (as Chuck called him earlier) essay that Chuck discussed.

It's almost like the Mickeys are being as brazen as Harvard Law Prof Mark Tushnet

-- Karl Franz Ochstradt, whose refusal to submit to Team Mikey-Wikey's Mandates some five years back might be said to explain all of this.  KFO NB: Never tell a leftist he's ignorant, but worse, never demonstrate that ignorance for all to see at the leftist's own Garage du Gauche.


** For the uninitiated, this blog has in the past discussed how "Mike Flugennock" and "Michael J. Smith" are the same person.  If we use the Simulated Beavers blog legend, "Nice Mike" is Dmitry Orlov, "Nasty Mike" is Michael J. Smith, and "Wicked Leftist not-quite-satire-ist Mike" is Mike Flugennock.  Continuing the legend, "Archie-on-the-mic, Mike" is John Michael Greer, "Fruity, Fluffy, Self-Deluded Expert of Nothing Who Wishes His First Name was Michel" is Tarzie (also BDR/Chalupa), and "Miguel, the Migrant Farm Worker who Organizes for the Union" is Michael Yates the travelog economeister.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

but don't they have fact checkers and peer vetting?

"Hey Chet, can I interrupt your music browsing and listening for a moment?"

"Sure, Hy.  What's up?"

"I've been trying to figure out how to explain why this blog always looks like it's written by someone from something like a Hitler Youth of America perspective, when its authors have no interest in demonizing any one particular school of thought, religion, social caste, or recreational pursuit."

"That may not be the best way to look at it, Hy.  I think there are some schools of thought that this blog's writers may not accept.  For example, the Ornate Writing ecole, I don't think anyone here endorses that, though the briefly tenured Mr Greenglen seemed strongly drawn in that manner."

"Okay, I see your point.  I guess also if we look at Chuck's roster entry on the right margin, he does list a whole lot of schools of thought, social castes and recreational pursuits that he has, does or will subject to parody, satire, ridicule, mockery, or teasing."


"So what would you suggest?"

"I think of it more as a values blog, as I said in the mega-thread.  And also, I think in order to begin trying to find the values requires reading most of the blog's entries, and seeing where the blog consistently picks on things, people, ideas or arguments.  Maybe from that, a view might begin to take shape."

"Most readers probably don't want to take the time."

"I agree.  What can you expect in the era of twitter's 140 character limitation and the manner in which people comment in that medium.  It's overwhelmingly passive-aggressive snark, which suggests that a given Tweeter's position is 'proved' or 'supported' only to the extent its snark registers as a WIN in the eyes and mind of the reader.  It's an echo chamber.  So imagine, a person whose sense of human social problems (NB: what "politics" supposedly aims to fix) is outlined and defined within or by 140 characters of WINNING snark.  Perhaps this is laudable in grades 5-7 and maybe for the immature, grades 5 through award of Bachelor's Degree, but no self-respecting adult should be playing on twitter."

"But how else are people going to connect for the purpose of identifying who agrees with them, politically speaking?"

"By meeting 'strangers' and talking to them, perhaps?"

"That requires me to consider strangers as people who don't intend to hurt me if I disagree with their politics, though."

"Why would you even consider that as a possibility?"

"News media.  They tell me that everyone's divided to the point of violence, and supposedly there are hundreds of angry anti-Semites and rednecks who want to not only kill Bernie Sanders but also kill his supporters."

"Where'd you hear or read that, Hy?"

"Like I said, on the news."

"Which news source?"

"The news, man.  You know.  The news."

"Hy.  Wait a minute.  Are you telling me that if you hear or read a news story, you automatically spin it up in your mind, creating a Worst Case Scenario as if the news story is true and indicates a fast-growing trend?"

"That's not what I said.  I saw it on the news somewhere."

"This is why you should pay attention to sources, Hy.  And also why you should realize that news sources are directed by editors who choose what story to run out of the thousands that could be run at that time.  Thousands is an understatement, too.  How does a news entity choose which stories it runs, and why does it choose them, Hy?  What do you think?"

Monday, May 23, 2016

sous pisces

Perhaps it's an actual move toward generosity of human spirit-drive-benevolence.

Or perhaps it's that sort of latent signal received only by a small % of those encountering it, suggesting what certain people on the planet intend to do to maintain control as they presently know it.

Maybe it's another triumph of marketing?  Like George Clooney's wife, the "international human rights attorney"? 


There's no such field in Law as "international rights" or "human rights".  You can't specialize in them. 

Unless you're independently rich and don't mind that out of a 40 hours time block set aside in your week, issues in "human rights" and/or "international rights" present themselves maybe for 10 minutes in those 40 hours.

It's even narrower than Constitutional Law, and we know how Glenn Greenwald lied when he sold himself as a Constitutional Law Expert.  He has no experience in the subject, no academic or practice oriented reputation as a well-regarded thinker.  But he labelled himself as such, and most repeated the labelling because of how it was sold and/or by whom.

Chet has done more Constitutional Law work than Glenn Greenwald, and he would not call himself a Constitutional Lawyer.FN


If someone offers a business proposition in which they will "promote human rights" in exchange for your cash, property, or other item of value in your little world, you are dealing with a marketer. 

Not a lawyer.

Not a global fund.

Not a safe harbor of any kind.


Congratulations.  Now you know what it feels like to be fleeced by a Joey Weil.

-- Harold Caidagh, celebrating Canadian Hexagon Day


FN - I checked with Chuck, who investigated Chet's work history and educational background.  Chuck also investigated Glenn Greenwald's work history and educational background, as well as that of  "Tarzie," Jeff Popovich, "Michael J. Smith," "John Michael Greer," "Arthur Silber," "Dmitry Orlov," and "Chris Floyd."  And probably a few others I haven't listed.  

stew pod

I think the ideal semi slick has yet to be made. Maxxis has got the casing, weigh and size, but the profile is fucked- makes leaning in vague and sketchy. Slaughter needs to shave weight. Rock Razor is too big and thin feeling. Riddler is right size and has a great profile, but the casing is thin and flimsy, yet heavy, somehow.

What an idiot.

The nature of a semi- with real side knobs will ALWAYS have "leaning in" problems because of the massive disparity in knob height.

If you bothered to ever ride your bicycle quickly and make your turns affirmatively and decisively instead of in wishy-washy, "think I'll just gently ease into this corner, that's EXACTLY why I wanted a tire with big side knobs!" then maybe you wouldn't have a "leaning in" problem.

You seem to want a MotoGP tire and surface interaction, same tire horizon around the radius.

How can you possibly think that will work as a semi-?

Do you even have a brain up there in your Canadian Toque Display?


This moron quoted above is trying to show he's got refined skills in distinguishing among tires.

What he actually has is enough of a vocabulary to use different (albeit almost marginally) descriptors for different tires, which descriptions are supposed to tell us that he's a genius of tire discernment and bicycle handling.

When he's neither.

-- Harold Caidagh, who is amused by the way his neighbors to the north have come to celebrate Hexagon Day every day.

you ARE my cattle, you WILL let me steal from you, you WILL take it laying down

The Ennis Emby Dining Club's maitre d'hotel, Pete Roggeman Chambers Gordon A. Boot LLB, tries on a new UNSF-uber-lyte version of writing and, typically, does not admit how he managed his change in "style."

He happily laps up the praise for "great writing," enjoying the grift and con, still not admitting where he got the change in style or the courage to change style in the first place.

Apparently he thinks that because he's not willing to actually be provocative, he's innocent of plagiarism.

Also, apparently he thinks that if he gets income ($$, bike stuff, or public acclaim) through mechanisms not of his own making, he owes nobody because, look, he didn't acknowledge from whom or what he stole his ideas on a change in style.

I think Pablo was correct in the thread-of-the-week:  today must be Canadian Hexagon Day.

--Harold Caidagh, who knows Pete Roggeman, Cam McRae, Dave Tolnai & Co. are Canadian and therefore interested in Have-a-Nice-Day culture, but wonders why they are so brittle-ego'd as to not acknowledge their sources.

normally, a chalupa is a cooked dish, not one served cold

Here is why I am not pro-Bernie Sanders. He is me. Angrier that he's not taken more seriously than what he barks he is angry about. He is not demanding a new paradigm, he is demanding more status in the existing paradigm. Me - and fuck me - too.

We have already told you Jeff Popovich lies regularly, most often to himself, but also to others.

And backpedals with "it's a gag, you don't get it, I'm more meta- than you!"

Which is another lie.



can you imagine being his daughter, trying to explain the psychoses your father suffers online at his 4,862 blogs and twitter outlets?

Can you imagine trying to explain why your father and Daniel Parziale have gay sex at every opportunity, while your father remains married to your mother, who is a woman?

You weren't born thinking ambisexuality was natural or good, but your father keeps telling you, we're more Bonobo than human, little Clare.


Jeff, you LOVE Bernie Sanders because you LOVE that a Jew is up there and you LOVE that his Jewishness pisses people off and you LOVE that his Socialist confession (of lies) pisses people off.

You also LOVE Bernie Sanders because you have a brand-new-since-two-oh-one-two hatred for the Mainstream Donkeys who used to be your heroes. By hating Hillary directly and in-, you show the zeal of the new convert and once again, pretend you always have been against the Ds and always, always, always have seen the kayfabe.

Except when you didn't.

For the majority of your adult life.

Including, ironically, the present.


Jeff, if you really believe Bernie Sanders doesn't want to go far enough, what would be "far enough"?

The First International?

Heads in the basket, guillotine oiled with blood?

You don't really know, do you?

You only know the Marxist pap that gulled your idiot mind, Mr Crowbar.

You are a walking laughingstock, and embarrass yourself so regularly that you ought to consider the wholesale revolution needed is WITHIN YOURSELF.

But you won't.

Because you're Chalupa the Wonder Dog, Pipsqueek Chihuahua Possessed of the Most Refined Artiste Sensitivities.

Who, unsurprisingly, is getting arse-plugged by a French bulldog wearing a yarmulke, named Binny.

--Harold Caidagh, who is amused when a dupe thinks he's the con artist.

Friday, May 20, 2016

nested russian dolls

This is some of your most powerful fiction yet, Mr. Greer.

Acolyte MZQ, in yesterday's Archie Comix.


Well, it's a deep shame and an awful pity that "his" fiction was taken from here.


Mikhail, Mickey, Michael, J. Michael, Michael J., Miguel, and Michel, new costumes but same game.

The russian doll is in the name of the CEO of the Monsanto analog, who happens also to blog under that name as well as "_______ J. Smith" and other Michaels of note, including Archie.


I find it amusing** that someone who spent about 8 years trying to "correct" me at Simulated Beavers can't admit he was wrong, and instead uses my writing to fund his own click farming as Archie, Who is Not Yeats and Not Yates Either.

This is how you "teach" others?  Steal without credit?

This is how an economist works?

As a software developer who pretends to be 4 or 5 other things now that he's made his millions?

Why should we treat you any differently than Racist Rolledsmug?

I guess you didn't pay attention to this:

The longer they accrue, the bigger the whack.

-- Harold Caidagh, who would encourage you to enable or create further accrual in order to increase his own piece of the whack, and who reminds you of what you did as "kapshow" and "owen paine" and how that adds octanitrocubane to the balloony piñata for a more explosive whack.


** Amusing, as in "for me, but very likely not for you."

apparently there's some problem with email

Otherwise, why not just email Lou and ask him?

Lindahl May 20th, 2016 9:20 am

Unrelated to this post, but looking for any recent beta on Landry’s exit conditions. Contemplating it for Sunday.

Or any other industry insider who might know? They probably have broken email too. Besides, how can you get your e-rep buffed if the objective isn't stated on Lou's blog?

--Paul Behrer, who thinks counseling or other confidential discussion may help Mr Lindahl with his overblown ego compensating for huge self-doubt.

there's that savage Canadian wit again!

I feel like I was just forced to attend a Barenaked Ladies concert in the front row.  Shrieks of joy and singalong verses from everyone within a 400-foot radius.

"Should I be encouraging more Helicopter Parent attitudes in my gift-buying decisions?," asks an intrepid member of the Ennis Emby Dining Club and Smoking Lounge.


Nobody I knew as a kid wore knee pads to ride a bike.

The trails now are much tamer.

But go ahead, encourage worry-wart perspectives, make the child afraid of the slightest scrape, and remember that any other view is just the hot sun of reactionary thinking melting your Precious Snowflake's unique genius and turning it into mere water.

--Paul Behrer, who knows from extensive experience that you need to get bruised, battered and bloodied in your recreation, and if you don't, you become a passive-aggressive asshole who is afraid of life and blames life's dangerous-unless-progressed nature for your pathetic insecurities.

as your lawyer, Britt, I urge you to invoke your right to not incriminate yourself

Well done, Mr Daniel.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

dat kant beee, sed Wahn Bai-weeeee!

Mostly because climate change first was raised by non-economist (read: true) scientists as a phenomenon worth our attention and effort, Silent T "science editor" Wahn Baiwee thinks it's a socialist plot.

It didn't help that Occidental Al made a movie designed to generate "green economy" (read: fake economy) investments and misdirections, nor that Al is a lifelong Democrat where, when pushed to side with either major team, Baiwee instinctively is Republican.

Combine these three points and the erstwhile science "expert" can't imagine that climate change would be an issue for anyone.


Companies whose capital growth depends on long-term forecasts being accurate usually have a stake in seeing fairly accurately over, across and through that long-term outlook.

Even a cosmotarian techno-robot-Republican like Wahn Baiwee can agree that profit-seekers usually try to maximize their profit, absent some bizarre provision under Title 26, U.S.C. which encourages experiencing and/or reporting losses where otherwise the entity would seek gain.


It would be interesting to hear Wahn Baiwee argue/distract/deflect his way out of this situation:

Insurer group leader fears climate changes to add to Canada disasters

(Reuters) — Canada will have to set aside more money to deal with natural disasters like wildfires, storms and floods as climate change starts to bite, the head of the country’s property insurance industry group said on Wednesday.

A wildfire sweeping through the heavily forested oil sands region of Alberta near the town of Fort McMurray could eventually cost CA$6 billion ($4.64 billion), according to one industry estimate.

Don Forgeron, CEO of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, noted there are a range of estimates on how much insured damage the wildfire will do, from a low-end of “a couple billion dollars” to a high of CA$9 billion ($7.0 billion).

“It will likely be somewhere in between, but we really don’t know,” he said following a speech in Ottawa, Canada.

Asked whether the wildfire would lift insurance premiums in Fort McMurray and other areas where the perceived risk is higher, Mr. Forgeron said it is “rare that one event will cause that kind of reaction.”

A special fund that the Canadian government runs to help provinces recover from disasters covers 90% of all eligible costs.

In his speech, Mr. Forgeron cited a February report by the parliamentary budget officer which said disasters linked to climate change would cost the government CA$900 million ($695.6 million) a year over the next five years.

This amount is far in excess of what Ottawa has currently set aside to deal with such events, he said.

“That’s a problem. That means (money to pay for) damages beyond what the fund can cover will need to be found elsewhere, resulting either in cuts to other programs or an increase in the federal deficit,” he said in the speech.

“Climate change ... has moved from future threat to present danger.”

The Insurance Bureau represents more than 90% of all car, home and business insurers in Canada.

Mr. Forgeron said the world had entered a troubling new era in which natural disasters such as fires and floods were happening more frequently.

Ways to help mitigate the damage include taking steps to better identify risks and then manage them.

“This means limiting or ending the practice of building in areas deemed high risk by flood mapping and having a hard discussion about where to build in areas that are close to our boreal forests,” he said.

Building codes also need to be upgraded to make houses more resilient, he added.

It would be keener than Ween if our friend Nigel West Dickens would make a stab at explaining why an insurer would talk about climate change as something actually happening, and as something we should work to accept and remedy.

But I'm not holding my breath.

-- Harold Caidagh, who thinks it's quite possible that (1) Al Gore's a liar; (2) the Democrats are liars; (3) the Greens are liars; (4) the "green economy" is bogus; (5) sketchy, misanthropic people will use duplicity to profiteer off the issue of climate change and human social efforts to minimize human sources of negative impacts upon the climate; while also it is true that (6) human industrialization and other planet-affecting activity have wrought negative impacts upon the earth's climate, and (7) there are things we can do to reverse some of the changes.

semiotically interesting


Dictatorial, 1-sided "tolerance" assertions

The conjunction is addressed by Chet Redweld

Mr Redweld confronts the conjunction rhetorically

Which path was Mr Redweld using here?

Here's the target, R side uphill from L side

Huh.  Who'd have expected this?

If Mr Redweld's shot considered the right side's uphill nature, he would not want the ball to strike the green with a right-to-left curve in trajectory, or a leftward spin of the ball.  It would be inclined to roll off the green, or bounce off the green, toward the left.

Mr Redweld chose a left-to-right curve in trajectory, a "fade" as it's described in panel 5.

A leftward flight or spin would likely have resulted in a 4 or higher on this Par 3.  Even Lee Trevino, who was a master of leftward spins and flights, would have struggled to stay on-target here.

How in Hades did Mr Redweld manage to control things so finely?

He spent a lot of time at the driving range, perfecting his golf swing so that he could control the ball's spin and flight, directing it with curves in either handedness.

--Charles F. Oxtrot, unofficial sort-of biographer of this blog's counsel, who would remind you that refinement of the golf swing is one of the most painstaking athletic pursuits one can undertake.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

remember, if Marketing can build a bubblefad of hype and spread it around to those "in the industry" for their regurgitation...

Sometimes, I read blogs other than this one and the reliable outlets of solipsism historically targeted by this blog's past writers.  My interests are somewhat different from Hal's, Paul's, Karl's, Hy's, or Chuck's.

My interests are jump-started whenever I find an intersection of two or more of these things:

  • the Law
  • athleticism vs "the sport" (defined as: money generated by hyping gear or destinations)
  • partisan politics offered as Objective Reality
  • economics vs technology vs environment vs ecology
  • satire/irony/sarcasm/parody, vs items offered as such but failing to provide it

Also, I like music, but I don't ever analyze or criticize a decision to put up a music video unless there is some absurdity in the idea of the thing offered as a music video actually containing music. Rick-rolling is not something I find impressive, but maybe that's because quite a few decades rest between me and myself in 8th grade. A practical joke needs more subtlety, wisdom and actual teaching to catch my attention now, much as it has since I was about 15, so that's a pretty long time I've got discerning the quality of practical jokes.

The judge I clerked for after graduating law school was a terrific practical joker who created elaborate practical jokes to prank on his friends. I heard about these not from the judge himself, but from his friends, who admired his creative sense of humor and mockery. I think if he'd chosen comedy instead of law, he could have been up there with Andy Kaufman.


Sometimes people think they're doing a "practical joke" and even will call it that when asked to explain their activity. Most times when you put the Elementary School Level Microscope (max 130x) on such explanations they fall apart and reveal the "joker" as actually trying to tear down the object(s) of the practical not-a-joke.

Whenever this is happening, I think it wise to look at the kind of person you're dealing with.  In other words, up to the moment it seems clearly not-a-joke, you were thinking him or her to be a funny person, or at least one who considers self funny and is willing to offer that in public, perhaps to failure and ego-shame result; perhaps also, to admiration and, in some cases, copycatting-as-flattery result.

Whether it's funny or something else might be easier to plumb with the observations in this post and its comments afterward.  It's from Hal, so you know it's going to provoke, because that's what Hal does.  His humor always is provocative, and always aims at hypocrisy and absurdity in the process.


"Marketing" is where a lot of pseudo-humor, done destructively toward one's fellow humans, is most honestly and openly displayed.

Let me give you someone else's graphic, done to parodic perfection, regarding competing running shoe designs from a recent fadbubble in running shoe sales:

The Hoka was hyped as an anatomically true, more "natural" shoe. And hyped as such not just by Hoka itself, but by those in the relevant "industry" where people "test" and "review" such shoes. And therefore the myth on the street/trail was that the Hoka was a hot new anatomic shoe that will let you run longer, faster, further with greater ease and less detriment to your (otherwise not athletically trained) body.

I don't know about you, but when I discover this kind of thing -- like when I tried on a Hoka shoe and felt what that graphic describes above -- I thought to myself, "why in Hades is there so much hype around this torture device?  Who could honestly think that's good for runners, or for future runner trust in shoe makers to deliver a well-designed shoe?"  Really, my gnawing problem was this:

Who could think it's honest?


Why do people "cynically" say, "well that's how things are, dude, and that's what you have to do to get ahead in this world."  ??


complaining about how their Partisan Opposite Political Superset are liars and how dishonesty is the primary problem with Donald Trump's campaign and status as seeker of the Oval Office?

Maybe you will leave me a comment that clarifies things?

Monday, May 16, 2016

what the fugg does that mean, really?

Didn't I say that PSIA is cluster-fragged because it can't stay focused on fundamentals long enough to realize that steady application of consistent fundamentals is more important than biennial hairsplitting redefinition of those bases?

Yes.  I did.

And here's why.

Q: I'm just curious how you would describe the changes to {ski teaching} methodology, language, focus that have occurred over the last 10 or so years. i am looking to reinstate my Cert and an curious as to the changes that I've missed.

* * *

A: One of the changes is that fundamental skills are viewed differently. The fundamental movements are now edging movements, rotational movements, and pressure movements. Balance is no longer considered alongside the other three, but rather as a byproduct of the application of the three.

Go here to demonstrate to yourself that I'm not making this up.


So, there's NOW a priority for edge/steer/pressure ABOVE balance or AS SEPARATE FROM balance, while 10 years ago it was different.

What a crock of manure.

This is what PSIA spends its time doing. Rewriting old principles in different language, with perhaps artificially different prioritization, which priority is granted solely to make the redefinition seem like a REVELATION HERETOFORE HIDDEN FROM VIEW.


Despite the excellent work from some of its members, as an entity PSIA is as hopelessly caught in word games as both of the major political parties. 

my CD is pitted & scratched, gets stuck during playback

This blog's past entries have used sports metaphors to suggest that squabbles within a team, or extra-curricular squabbles with the opposing team, are counter-productive.

Given this blog's redneck, rural slant and take on life, perhaps a non-sports metaphor will apply better to make the same point:

I don't have any idea who Mr Harrison is, and haven't read his NervousBirds timeline to "frame" his comment according to Accepted 2016 Infotainment Dictates (political backbiting subset, tribal affiliation division), so don't read this block quote as an endorsement of any sentiment but the one directly quoted verbatim above.


Wildland firefighters use fire to combat fire spread all the time. All the time.

If you don't believe me, and hold that stance because you read Harrison's NervousBirds timeline and sussed (in your mind, at least) his "prejudices," then maybe you should go ask a wildland firefighter.  You have lots of them in your area, don't you urban metrosexual hipster progressive?


Back to game strategy.

Let's roll over and play nice. That's what Accepted 2016 Infotainment Dictates (political backbiting subset, tribal affiliation division) want you to do, when they don't want you to simply divide, divide, divide and fail to see that there is any commonality at all.

One may as well have a poorly behaved child and, instead of working with the child and one's own historical parental failures, simply write off the child as a sociopath whose origins must be biochemical -- but not inherited directly from either or both parents.

If we encountered the problem child situation and possible solutions while visiting the masters of refraction at, perhaps we'd hear a different solution. Genetic modification, or a biosynthetic neural transplant or implant.


It's not about behavior, ever.

It's about progress. As a concept.

And feelings.  Feeling that we're progressing, more specifically.  And whether urged or mandated social changes are actually improving society for everyone, let's ignore that.  "Everyone" means "progressives" (or leftists, liberals, socialists, communists) and whomever isn't on board with this narrow interpretation of "progress" should be silenced.  Or treated like a Nazi.

--Harold Caidagh, who rejects your solipsism, arrogance, and pretense at having earned the right to practice dictatorship over all with whom you might disagree

Sunday, May 15, 2016


If Curt Is Yar Vin has retired, does that make Scott Alexander the most pretentious "deep thinker" / pocket dictator on the internet?  More than either MICHAEL incarnation?  More than Jacques Krogh-Barr III?

Chris Ballas was powerfully self-impressed, and Scoots Alexpolyandry might have him, the MICHAEL, Sprytel J Chimchim, the Crowtard, and even Noam Chomsky beaten for empty verbosity that gulls the innaleckshul wannabe.

--Karl Franz Ochstradt, who isn't impressed when you need 2500 words to convey what he can say clearly in 5.

we may be the biggest, but that doesn't mean we have high standards or anything

luddites and grouches, I give you the clear vision and concise writing of pinkbike's Matt Wragg:

Richie Rude is on unbelievable form right now, taking five of seven stages wins and recovering from a 70th on stage two to get within five seconds of the win. He may not be the man on top of the box tonight, but he is still the man to beat right now.

I'll start gently here.

The man to beat has to finish on the top box, Matt.  Winning isn't almost.  Every rider who didn't finish 1st had issues that he or she could cite as their almost justification.

The man to beat "right now," this past weekend, was Greg Callaghan.  Richie Rude didn't beat him.

Perhaps you meant to say something like, "Despite his finish, Richie Rude seems to be at peak fitness and technical form at this point in the 2016 season."

Everything else is noise, Matt. 

As you show elsewhere in the same photo/writing story, having the confidence to run a brief caption is not a problem.  Not always, anyway.

For every photo, though, stick to this instinct:  the briefer the better.

This wordiness reflex gets you into trouble -- like talking about "unbelievable form." 

I think that might be best applied to Sam Hill and his finish, given his pedal preference and reputation as not being strong in pedally situations.

Richie Rude's kinda known as a pedaling powerhouse, isn't he?  So in relative terms, in the context of this race, Sam Hill is the one who showed the most surprising display of pedaling form -- isn't he?  But in any case, this sort of observation is best left to the written story, not the captions.  What I mean to emphasize is, if you want a pithy remark like "unbelievable form" to have the superlative impact that the word "unbelievable" actually carries (despite Hipster 2016 inflation/distortion of many words, yes, despite that), then maybe apply it to the rider whose form was surprising.

Facts.  Stick to facts in captions.

Don't try to read minds, or pretend that you can.  Don't do this:

Florian Nicolai contemplates what is ahead of him on the starting line of stage four.

Maybe if you tried to pull back and consider your audience, you may reconsider this predictive caption.  Perhaps you'll scratch that one out, metaphorically with the backspace key, and retype it as, "Florian Nicolai looking contemplative."  But exactly about what he's contemplating, do you really know precisely what he's thinking?

What you wrote was basically this:

If I were Florian Nicolai, with this many ________ (minutes, seconds, hours -- choose one) before the start of stage four, I'd be thinking here about just what is ahead of me on the track of stage four.

But it's not about Matt Wragg or his fantasies.

Florian Nicolai might be thinking about what's ahead of him.

He might instead be thinking, "relax."  He might be thinking, "trust yourself, don't think about it, just ride."

He might be thinking, "I am so flippin' hungry right now I'd like to be eating gigantic sandwich made from soppresata, capicola, provolone, roasted red peppers, pickled jalapenos and a little oil & vinegar."

Don't pretend you know what he's thinking.  But you can say he looks contemplative, if you wish.

Just remember, he looks contemplative.

Do you really need to tell us how to see or interpret his face?

Isn't it better if we do that ourselves?

This next one's a matter of perspective:

How loud were the crowds today?

A better observation might be, "how overprotective are parents today?"

But I get the point.  You want it to be loud, that's good for the sport.  Right?  More clicks at pinkbike, that's good for the sport.  The louder it is, the more "the sport" is "growing" and therefore the better "the sport" is for everyone.  I know.  I read pinkbike, Matt.  I know the pinkbike view.


I really do get it, Matt.

You don't care about your audience.  But really, you don't have to.

Do you?

If it means you have to constantly manipulate them by setting yourself up as The Expert, and talking down to them -- if you have to do that to hang onto your industry insider status and your money-for-nothing job that every perpetual adolescent in the pinkbike fanboi locker room... uh, I mean comment threads... would love to have, and honestly they'd probably all do a better job than you on the captions -- if you have to put on the Emperor's New Clothes which make you omniscient, then yes, just keep talking down to them.

You know, they basically do sort of worship you because you're an industry insider working at a publication that likes to remind us how much better at everything its staff are, given their status as industry insiders -- that means you can read minds and are way better at "reading" people's faces because you, too, have seen Tim Roth on Lie to Me and know the CIS: Birmingham UK routine cold.

So, just read Florian Nicolai's face and mind for us.  We don't have the imaginative power to do so ourselves.  And you're the expert here.

Just don't listen to idiots like me, who insist you insult them with your self-centered view. 

They're too stupid to have any view other than Matt Wragg's the Expert Here, I'll Defer to Him.

None of them could write better than Matt.

I mean, you work for pinkbike!  You have RC on the masthead!

I'd like to think that as a writer for such a large outlet, Matt Wragg would contain himself with some humility, including some higher standards for his writing.

But he just can't help himself.

Martin Maes wasn't about to let some minor technical issues stop him - he figured that running on the rim worked well enough for Gwin, so he would give it a go on stage four.

No, Matt.  He decided to run just on the rim.  It's that projection/mind-reading bug catching you again.

He didn't do it because of Gwin's run.  He did it because he had a tire issue and figured the rim would hold up.  If he didn't figure that, he'd have bailed with a mechanical DNF.

All you're doing here is showing your industry insider status braggart self.  "Hey, I remember Gwin running the course on his DT rim!  That must mean Maes thought of Gwin's run too, instead of just being his own self and running on the rim because the rim was true and Maes is a stout competitor."

You're again projecting Matt Wragg's thoughts onto the subject of Matt Wragg's photo.

Stick to the image, Matt.

The image doesn't tell us that Maes's reason for going on the bare rim was Gwin's run on his own bare rim.

So if you got that idea from Maes himself in between image capture and caption writing, you would write it like this:

Martin Maes had a tire issue on stage four but wasn't about to let that stop him.  When interviewed after the race, he told me that finishing a race run on the rim worked "well enough for Gwin," so he tried to finish stage four in a similar manner.

Finally, we have this short caption, which involves a much subtler problem.

A flat and some wheel trouble pushed Josh Carlson way down the order unfortunately.

You might not see this one immediately, Matt.  So I'll repost it with a color-based hint.

A flat and some wheel trouble pushed Josh Carlson way down the order unfortunately.

If someone wears suspenders, do they also need a belt?

If someone wears a belt, do they also need suspenders?

My pants hold up well with either, and no better if I use both.

I realize this is all essentially shouting at a wall, but I've read too many of these captions that ruin an otherwise outstanding photo story.

Let us use our imaginations, Matt.  Don't interpret it for us.  You're not our teacher.  And besides, good teachers don't interpret for students.  They help students learn how to interpret things for themselves.

Your images do a perfect job of capturing many things.  Stop trying to make the caption do the work.  The caption isn't carrying the message.  The photo is.

The captions are best when they just identify the rider, and maybe the stage and/or segment of the stage.

Why not pay attention to the high quality video journalism that the people over at the GMBN YouTube channel are delivering?  I never hear Martyn Ashton, Neil Donoghue, Marc Beaumont or Scott Laughland talk down to their audience, or pretend they can read a fellow rider or racer's mind.

Or maybe just talk to your fellow pinkbike writer, Paul Aston.  He's got his head on properly.

Whatever you do, don't start imitating that Felton character, who is pathetic.

--Charles F. Oxtrot, who normally charges between $175 and $200 per hour for such editorial work.

last salvo, this one's not across the bow but detaching it from the vessel's hindparts

Please visit the image URL for the ultimate irony.


--Harold Caidagh, whose aim was severance and not warning-shot.

remember when...

Remember when Glenn Greenwald was so eager to be worshiped as the next Alan Dershowitz that he was his own army of trolls, sprawled out across the internet, praising Glenn Greenwald and denigrating anyone who pointed out that Glenn didn't have any reason to be a hero given his unethical law practice history, his lack of substantive knowledge in the law, and his abject naivete in sociopolitical power struggles?

Oh, wait.  You don't remember that because you became a Social Justice Warrior after Gooey Glenn was hired by salon?  by GuardianUK?  by Petey Ovid's-hard?

Yes.  When he wrote for Unclaimed Territory, he was a self-funded blogger with self-funded Multiple Online Personality Disorder.

That's how he became a Hot Property:  marketing!  lying!  subterfuge!

Inevitably, idiots like Chalupa, Tarzie, Jake-fuck-my-back-door, Boring Freddy de Boer, Chris "to get rich, cast a line" Floyd scrambled to Socially Signal their Progressiveness by boosting Gooey Glenn as a hero of the 21st Century.

What dipshits.

Of course, Gooey Glenn became one of those who gets paid to troll heavily.

Not sure about the rest of them.  Jakey seems to have got some payment for his trolling novel of debauching gender identity and sexual mores.  Chalupa still struggles to be recognized as a genius.  Tarzie imitates (albeit poorly, and from a Swishy Boy-Lover's view) this blog's method of critical dark comic observation without income.

Keep trying, Chalupa.  Maybe you can pay off Planet's tuition in shorter than 20 years if you can get someone to fund your pathetic trolling of CORPORATE CRACKER MISOGYNIST RAPIST REPTHUGLICAN TEATARD REACTIONARY HOLYFUCK.

--Harold Caidagh, who sees your War for Social Justice as little more than a Battle of the 'net-work Passive-Aggressive Stars.

Saturday, May 14, 2016


I'm pretty sure that if Rahm Emanuel and Mark Zuckerberg and Bernie Sanders held a joint press conference to announce that, thanks to facebook's pivotal status in domestic terrorist identification, The Progressives will round up, imprison, torture, rape, then kill everyone who either (a) didn't vote for Bernie in the primaries, (b) publicly stated skepticism about Bernie's authenticity and/or lack of Trojan Horse qualities, (c) actively supported a GOP candidate through campaign efforts, internet commentary, cocktail party/coffee shop chatter, or a primary vote,


there would be an eruption of cheers, along with foaming mouths, bulging eyes, endorphin rush in group fashion, and a rising bloodlust in the mind,


little Jeff Popovich would feel like his entire life of anxiety was finally validated.

Yeah, I wore TH shirts to GD concerts.  Forever hip.

No, I didn't realize that wearing a band shirt to a concert was childish.

My t-shirts prove my depth and taste as an artiste.

Friday, May 13, 2016

battle-worn, battered, beleaguered and bullied, Ackah limped toward his burial ground

Apparently O-care is getting its just desserts.

Feel free to disregard the report.  You won't bother reading the opinion in any event, even if you choose to dismiss the report because of its source. 

You'll claim the opinion was written by a reactionary judge who wants to stop social progress and make everyone die at 13 of typhoid or diphtheria.

You'll do all this because you don't know law, and you don't tolerate any disagreement.

Take a look in the mirror, smile that Cheshire Cat grin, and remind yourself that you've got it all figured out, and everyone who disagrees with you is insane, wrong, sociopathic, etc.

--Harold Caidagh, who laughs at your gullibility over and over and over and over and over and over....

brain exercises

The lads had fun yesterday with their little weir and diversion from the main stream of Mr Behrer's entry.  Several comments received (but not submitted for publication) expressed the notion that somehow this blog has become an outlet for a disturbing form of prejudice and bigotry, which should not be tolerated in 2016 given the tremendous social progress the world has witnessed thanks to Social Justice Warriors on the internet.


One of the more common phrases used by this blog's roster of past and present athletes is "as always," or "as usual."  The phrase gets a lot of play because one of the blog's aims is to look at various Social Justice Warrior outlets or persons and see how they are consistently (1) deluded rather than holistic or comprehensive, (2) mistaken on facts, or (3) confused regarding where the facts actually lead.

The blog also likes to point out commonalities of "style," as some might call it, used in communicating the Social Justice Warrior's argument.

Perhaps the most reliable theme you could tease out of this blog's history is this:  the athletes here love to play against opponents who talk a big game, but when on the field in actual competition display something akin to rookie status.  And not a gifted rookie, either.

This blog's athletes enjoy teaching the rookies.  Whatever method is required, the teaching happens.  Sometimes it's helpful and positive, when the rookie finally lets his ego wall crumble and admits he or she needs some guidance.

But most times, it's a little more like R. Lee Ermey playing a Marine Corps drill sergeant.  And this is because the rookie persists in Ego Ballooning even when rookie's on-field play shows that everyone watching and playing knows rookie's an un-coordinated nobody who knows nothing and can't play worth two feces.


As usual, the commenters who submitted their observations are deluded and wrong on the facts.

This blog holds no brief for any ideology, religious tenet/worldview, political party, social clique, or other team analog.

Nobody on the roster goes to religious services or reads a religion's manual or affiliated writings.  None of the athletes prays, or otherwise speaks to an occupant of the God Box.

There isn't a single person on the roster who belongs to a political party.  Not by voting record, not by self-directing affinity otherwise, and not by official membership either.  If you tallied the votes of all the roster's members, over their respective voting lives, you'd find an indeterminate party affinity.  No cognizable patterns exist.


Sometimes we see rookies in our sport who achieved relative notoriety in another.  For example:  former bike racers who think that this history of trying to go fast on a bike makes them great writers.

Or bicycle mechanics, "designers," "product managers," or other "industry" people who think that being "in the industry" means they know politics or governmental operations.  Or, when even more absurdly ridiculous, they think "industry" experience means they know what is "social justice" and who in American society should be silenced, punished, removed or killed.

Or engineers, who think that being an engineer means they know everything about everything.  This one's such a broad swath of the naive pitiful rookie class that I could type until my hands lock up when listing examples of this enginerdery on the internet and in real, earth-bound life.


Just because it's Hipsterama, Bro! to spew invective about Christians and "religion" in 2016 doesn't mean it's funny when you do it, rookie.  It sure doesn't show your intellect's grandiosity is replicated when we compare how you represent your intellect on the internet against what your little noggin actually can do in a test of logic and reasoning.


Enginerdery is somewhat logical, being ultimately an exercise in mathematics.  What's more logical than this ancient science of mathematics?

I can grant enginerds their regular use of logic when practicing the actual thing of engineering -- if they're not doing it all on a computer.  Otherwise said:  if they're actually using math themselves, and not using a computer to do the math.

Using logic to test various stresses on a structural design is one thing.

Using logic + reasoning to understand human society and tease out what are the fulcrums on which today's sociopolitical antipathies ride -- that's well beyond enginerdery, and being an enginerd has no bearing on this exercise.

At all.

Being a bike mechanic or shop owner or "industry" functionary doesn't teach you anything on the subject either.

Being a sponsored freeskier who has done a few comps doesn't inform you on it either.

Having raced World Cup DH doesn't make you wiser on political and social friction matters.

None of these things makes you a good writer.

And none of them makes you anything other than a rookie in the field where this blog and its roster of athletes play.

If you step onto this playing field, you need to understand how to play.

If you stand on the sidelines and see bigotry at play, you aren't understanding the game enough even to be a rookie in it.

Go back home, junior.

Go practice your logic, reasoning, reading comprehension, imaginative power.

Come back when you're not tied to some viewpoint so firmly and steadfastly that everything which runs counter to your viewpoint is WRONG or worse, indicative of insanity, obsession, lust, perversion, sociopathy, misanthropy, or some other category of mental infirmity or behavioral problem.


It's understandable given the above narrative that you, as a rookie, would copy the way this blog's athletes play.

Maybe you should be a bit more humble about where you learned how to play the game, if all you have done is read this blog's posts, get angry about them, but then turn around and copy this blog's communication style almost to a T, while saying that this blog is an insanity-laden outlet for dangerous bigoted reactionary views, or saying that this blog's athletes are obsessed with this SJW or that SJW.

Admit that the obsession is yours, and that you hope to be mistaken for holding the same capacities as any of this blog's athletes when you imitate their displays of skill.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

plastics, Benjamin. plastics.

I'm not sure you can trust a "druid" whose worshiped trees are rotomolded plastic simulacra.


Our good friend Archie bounced back somewhat this week, at least in the main entry.  But, as always, his talks with himself in the "comments" thread reveal how ignorant he remains, despite pontificating as if the ring-kiss and kneel were ubiquitous and past, for this particular homily, among his parishioners.

Let us peer past the pews, and witness what transpires from the pulpit:

I am completely unoffended. You're choc-a-block with good ideas e.g., the precautionary principle seems like a no-brainer, but the evidence suggests otherwise. At 400 ppm CO2, is a true anachronism. If you have ever seen Golgi stains of prefrontal neurons before and after, say, sucrose or methamphetamine use, you'd be astonished at the long-lasting hypertrophy. I'd say a similar thing has happened to industrial society's brain following the exploitation of fossil fuels: a derangement of architecture and function leading to the loss of normal incentive recognition.

This would be allegedly springing from the cranial vault of one "Compound F".  At the moment of his speaking, he stands next to and slightly behind Father MICHAEL.  He is an altar boy.

Meanwhile, up on the pulpit, Father MICHAEL readies the wafers.

Once the communion tray is ready, he descends from on high, and walks to the first pew, where the little altar boy now is placed, and where he always sits during communion:

Compound F. okay, that gets tonight's gold star. I haven't read up on prefrontal neurons since my college biology classes, but clearly I need to review that!

Dominus vobiscum, et cum spiritu tuo.


The pseudoscience referenced by Corporal Fragged-brain is amusing.  Apparently the phrase golgi apparatus and the labels prefrontal neurons / sucrose / methamphetamine are supposed to lend scientific heft to the implication that yes, if you consume sugar or any "speed" variant, a little burst of brain activity will happen, because that's what happens when energy sources (sugar) or biochemical triggers of heightened energy/endorphin release (amphetamines) are consumed.  That's what your body will do, short term.

As to the basic idea of energy-release within the corpus, Cpl F is not far wrong.  But to suggest that there's some kind of long-term overgrowth ("hypertrophy" - which is what you see when a bodybuilder gets Hans-und-Franz pumped up,** or when you are taking a written essay exam and your stupid writing hand cramps up in the death claw position before you're finished writing) from eating sugar, drinking sucrose solution, or gobbling/smoking amphetamines, that's just absurdity talking. 

Perhaps it's the same "humour" we got from MICHAEL at the Simulated Beavers Riverside Lodge and Brandy Sipping Salon.

"See, we are just like Will Ferrell in Elf, squeezing an adult body into a child's desk.  How hilarious!  What grand, smirk-evoking word-sorcery!  Are we not the most uproarious comedy skit on the internet?"


Exchange the Second:

We have today among us a young parishioner whose Confirmation you all are cordially invited to witness immediately after today's Mass. Young Vesta has been called upon to Confirm her faith in Our Lord and His Emissary, Father MICHAEL.

Seems like a Burkean society would procede to experiment incrementally, evaluate carefully, replicate freely, and eliminate continuously, emperically and without principle a priori. No? Sounds Natural.

I do believe she has memorized her speech accurately. Here comes the splash of Holy Water --

Vesta, excellent! Yes, I was planning on getting to that. Burkean conservatism is also evolutionary ecology applied to the sphere of human politics...

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit....


Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned.

I have observed the grandiosity, pomposity, pretense, arrogance, haughtiness, and desire to obtain False Idol status in your words and deeds.  I confess that I lose faith in the Church because of your foibles, which are grouped together not by my imagination, but by your deeds on display, Father.

There is no such thing as "evolutionary ecology," Father, and I wonder why you treat the two words as emblematic, significant, and authoritative with a repository of accumulated legitimate scientific wisdom hiding behind them.

The phrase at best, if given the greatest charity, is a redundancy.

Ecology = supra-organismal biology.  You know what supra- means, do you not, Father?  It is Latin and you are a pontiff in the Latinate tradition.  It means above.

Ecology observes the system as a whole.

If the individuals in the system experience change, it does not render the system as "evolutionary."  It is merely a system that has dynamic qualities.  Nothing more.

Evolution is a separate concept and as of 2016 remains a theory.

A theory.

Such as that which says, Yahweh gave the world to Jews, and all non-Jews are your slaves.

--Paul Behrer, who would be repulsed by the Father's arrogance if he didn't know the Father was just an actor in a C-grade movie, one in which the actor speaks to a mirror for 84 minutes.


** In contrast, the female patient of the FACS cutter who gets silicon gel or saline solution sacs installed in her upper thoracic is not actually hypertrophied, but instead is edging toward human-machine merger, which is an artificial growth and not one prompted by nature.  On the other hand, if in the future the patient's body should react negatively to the installed sacs, and suffer the relatively anomalous end of extreme corporal over-reaction on the aggressive D side of game strategy, perhaps scar tissue will see hypertrophy in the region, and in the oddest of cases, carcino cells can demonstrate their expertise in hypertrophy-without-end in that same region.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

fixing the electrical outlet with a fork

Truly, it is shocking.

Yes, if you put a fork into an electrical outlet, you'll be shocked if the outlet is hot and you're holding the fork -- unless it's insulated at the holding end.

It's also completely surprising --synonym, shocking-- to learn that a shitbird like Bark Muckerzerg is trying to make sure everyone on bacefook is a soft-Marxist FEEL THE BERN cryptozio empathizer, by filtering content on bacefook.

Gotta love those manipulative Jews.  Gotta love them.

Gotta hate on "intolerant" Christer-Crackers so the Marxists can keep building mo-mo-mentum for the eventual Dictatorship of the Jewletariat.

--Harold Caidagh, who doesn't care what religion you want to follow unless you think everyone has to follow yours.

Sunday, May 8, 2016

it's funny when I do it, but bigotry when YOU do it

Remember when Lisa Birnbach wrote a book to help her fellow tribals emulate what they wished they were, but weren't?

The book was sold as "tongue-in-cheek" but anyone who knows human insecurity and social grasping knows, her audience was not having positive laughs about The Prep.  Nope.  It was about envious spiteful mockery.

Perhaps a fellow named Reginald Winstanley Oglethorpe IV should write a book called The Official Insecure Neurotic Jew Handbook?

It could go on for days, weeks, months, years, decades, scores, forever even, really -- and discuss how being manipulative liars who create nothing of their own but steal others' work for profiteering aims and ends, that's what people should try to be.  Officially, that is.  Per the handbook.

You're feeling your blood pressure rise right now.  Your face is rather beet-like.  Are you prepared to call me an anti-Semite?

Look, this is all tongue-in-cheek.

Check yourself, before you wreck yourself.

--Harold Caidagh, who is always amused when a Jew talks about reactionary Christians and spews hatred about "religion" but oddly removes Judaism from "religion" in the analysis.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

shut down on every offensive attempt

In the past this blog's discussions have offended the unathletic among you by drawing analogies to sports and more specifically, the terrible, supposedly preppy sport of lacrosse.

The most poignant was perhaps this one.


When I was a sophomore, I moved from playing defense to midfield.  When you play midfield, as compared to defense, your offensive game has to be stronger.  You have to be able to move the ball upfield yourself, dodge opponents, find people who are open for a pass, or if the stars align, you may get a chance to shoot on goal.  On top of all that, you play defense in the middle of the field whenever the opponents have possession.

In handedness, I have always preferred the coordination of my right hand's efforts.  I threw everything with the right hand/arm.  Hit from the right-swing side of the plate.  Serve and volley with the right hand.  Swing the golf club in a right-handed fashion.

You can learn serviceable skills in lacrosse -- basic fundamentals -- focusing only on one-handedness in stick usage.  Most players do this.  But as your skills develop, you should be trying to pass, catch and shoot with the opposite hand.  Bilateral movement is essential.


Next time you watch a pro sporting event, nerdy left-ish progressive Democrat reader of this blog, watch the offensive play.  Are the players whose skill you admire limited in their offensive tactics and techniques to using only one hand, or moving in only one direction?

How many soccer players can work with only one of their two feet?  Of those, how many play at higher levels of competition?

What about in basketball?  How valuable is a point guard who can only go to his right?


In that freshman year I played, my team's biggest trouncing came at the hands of Pittsburgh Lacrosse Club.  PLC had so many good players they fielded two teams, Pitt Black and Pitt Gold.  Varsity and JV, in a sense.  But all of PLC's players were already graduated from college.  They were former college lacrosse players, who now worked in various roles within the PGH general area.  Some of the PLC players were All-Americans in lacrosse in college.  Their level of skill was pretty high.

To show the disparity in talent:  my college's club playing against them would be like a bunch of middle school baseball players trying to play against a pro baseball team.

That's a little overstated, but not too much when you refer to my college's freshman year team.  We improved over that 1st year pretty significantly, and a big part of the improvement came from the lessons we learned playing PLC.


Most of the teams in our league were relatively rookie players.  Most of the teams were primarily club oriented, not varsity with school funding.  Some of the teams were varsity, but most were clubs.  Varsity programs usually have lots of players who played in HS and possibly even earlier.  In contrast, clubs take all comers who manage to be useful in some way.

When playing against PLC, within the first quarter's first 5-8 mins of play, PLC had us sussed.  Most of us were one-dimensional, most were right-handed who could only throw or catch on the right side of the body.


This was heard repeatedly during the first 5-8 mins of play against either of the PLC squads when we played them in my freshman year.

Their players would simply close all avenues of progress for a right-dominant player, forcing the player to move, pass, catch or feebly shoot from their weaker or, in most cases, non-existent left side.

The end result is that PLC played us like we were anchored to the ground, they ran around us, passed past us, made swiss cheese of our goalie.

If you think the world is unipolar and more than this, that your polar of choice is everyone's polar selection, you're playing like my college freshman lacrosse squad.

Good luck with that.

We didn't ever beat anyone by being one-sided.


We did beat the lower of the two Black/Gold squads in my junior year.  By then, many of us were much more bilateral.

-- Chet Redweld, who scored only 2 goals in his college career, but had bushels and pecks of assists, won numerous faceoffs, and did, in fact, sometimes pass & catch with his left.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016


Thank you, Udi:

That and Mike Levy can't get his mouth off Shimano's balls so they never have any incentive to fix the numerous problems with all their current brakes - AND it discourages sales and sales networks for smaller brake brands that are superior in at least some ways.

What? Spike Grieve is just a fluffer? Who ever could have imagined?

you don't want to know

Here's a simple question you will surely hate answering.

If you are doing something in a group or social or non-solo setting, and someone else then does that something with more facility, quickness, grace, deftness, depth and breadth of skill or knowledge

was that person trying to "beat" you?

or was that person simply doing what he/she could?

If someone knows more than you about a subject, is she trying to put you down when she talks about that subject?

If someone's better than you at a sport, or an aspect of that sport, is he trying to make you feel small when playing that sport in your presence?

If someone's better than you at using a tool or device, is that person trying to belittle you when using that tool or device with you as witness?


From the time I was small, people who were better than I am/was at something were not ever experienced negatively.  If I met a person who could do something better than I could, I wasn't embarrassed or emasculated or existentially eviscerated.  If someone beat me in a running race, I didn't fall to the ground and cry in a tantrum or run to hide behind a building or rock while contemplating suicide.

If someone got a higher grade on a test or quiz or paper in a subject I enjoyed and either consciously or subconsciously was driven to master, at some level, I didn't feel like I should commit seppuku. 

Why would I?

I didn't imagine myself the greatest in the universe at anything, let alone everything.


Here, some people may say this:

"Chet, you have the attitude of one who has won, placed first, got the only A+ or 100, etc., at some point.  What about people who never do better than mid-pack, no matter what they do?"

To which I must reply:

I can't ever recall getting the only A+ or 100 in a scholastic matter, nor the "best in class" designation on a paper or report.  I did win foot races in PE class, and could swim the length of the pool faster than my friends, but I didn't compete in Track or Swimming for any team or school.

In college and law school, sometimes my test answers were used as models for classroom discussion.  These occurrences surprised me, as I've never been a 4.0 student.

I had some unexpected victories in the early days of my legal work.

I scored a few goals as a lacrosse player, and as a soccer player.  I've hit a few HRs in intramural and work-related softball, sometimes in clutch situations.  Hoovered some ground balls with a whip to 1st to shut someone down at a pivotal point while playing SS or 3B, even.

None of that was done with an eye toward making you feel inferior.  Ever.

I don't compete with you.

I compete with me.

And that's how it's always been, and how it always will be.  If you think I'm trying to make you feel small, you'd better go get some counseling.

I'm trying to make myself feel small.**   

You're not even in the picture.  Even if it's a lacrosse game and we're facing off, I'm trying to face off better than my last 25 faceoffs.  I'm not trying to beat you.  I'm improving my game.

And that's the whole picture.  There's nothing more to it.

I pursue personal excellence.

Maybe that's what makes you feel small.  Maybe you can't pursue it, and so....?


Sometimes, when competing with myself, I lose.  Big.  Sometimes I quit, and walk off the pitch.

Sometimes, when doing a solo bike ride, I start out with Objective A, but midway through my climb I change my plan to Objective A/2 or A/4.

Once upon a time I tried to be an entrepreneur despite knowing I'm not a salesman or marketer or psy-op-user.  The mid-path realization that sales/marketing were essential made the entire project, a full 3 years of my life, become a black hole.

The pursuit of excellence became the achievement of its opposite!


I do not offer this brief tale of failure as a navel-gaze, as an attempt to be a 21st Century Hipster who is neoplastic-irony embodied.

It's just an example.

You have to know when to walk off the pitch.

If you're afraid to step onto the pitch in the first place, I don't think you should be blaming those who are happily playing, accusing them of trying to make you feel small.

I think you should accept your present position but understand we all can improve, and if you want to be out there on the pitch badly enough, you'll find a way to get there.

Just don't bother me with your carping from the sidelines.  I only care to hear from those who gained the pitch and played there.

--Chet Redweld, whose path hasn't always been smooth -- if ever.


**  Though I'm not really trying for that "feel small" self-abuse endpoint, I'm really trying to see if I can be better than the last time I tried it.  If I succeed, the last attempt will be lesser by comparison.  It's unhealthy, though, to want to feel small, or to let yourself feel small.  So I don't really chase that.

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

not really

It's true that in the past, this blog observed that Dmitry Orlov is a smart guy -- which, as steward of the blog's contents, I'd say should be qualified with an update, and perhaps even clarified as to what makes someone "smart."


· CITIZENS UNITED IS ACTUALLY CORPORATIONS DELIGHTED – Here is a quick review of the state of American electoral politics. We have a status quo in which only rich people can even run for office. Predictably, they will not represent the interests of The Little Guy, but of the mega-wealthy people who got them elected. Thoroughly enjoying all of the perks that come with high office, these supposed representatives of the people spend an enormous percentage of their time in office raising money for their next election campaign.

This block is lifted from The Voting Delusion, posted this AM.


The qualifier "smart" reflects an appraisal of the writings offered under the name Dmitry Orlov at Club Orlov. It is not based upon meeting a man who presents himself as "Dmitry Orlov" and has proof that such is his legal name, along with proof of the background suggested as his, also found at Club Orlov.

As a part of earning that qualifier, this blog's past writers have observed and emphasized (among themselves, at least) the dark comedy seen within much of Orlov's writing.

I just wanted to get that set down here, in e-print, before moving to the next phase.


Unless there's a sliver of dark comedy lurking in the block quote above, and I'm unable to detect that little slice, then I have to conclude that "smart" now is degraded to add the following: "...but unwilling to admit where he doesn't know what he's talking about."

Citizens United does not really matter, because of Buckley v Valeo.

I'm not rehashing that for this blog's 4th or 5th time, so if you want to know why I say it doesn't matter, just go to the search box in the upper left, and enter "buckley v valeo" and see what you find in past posts here.

What I wouldn't recommend is checking progressive/leftist/Democrat/liberal outlets for an appraisal of the importance of Citizens United.  Those outlets without exception pretend that it all started with Citizens United rather than Buckley.


The takeaway message:  every holistically brilliant person you encounter/are impressed with, he/she/ze will have blind spots and often, will pretend such areas of cluelessness don't even exist.

it's a little lukewarm, but...