Monday, March 20, 2017

the twitter equivalent of eating a bullet

BARK!

Just one bark, but boy is it a howler:

Correct usage: The enormity of Scalia's assholosity lead to his legal decisions that ratfucked untold millions.

It's not the first time someone thought that an MFA = a JD, jurisprudence-wise.

It won't be the last.

It may be the only MFA-leading-to-Reference-Librarian-plus-Tempera-Poetaster who thinks it's got legal chops, but it may not.

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

Chalupa,

stack up the manifold reasons of Scalia's horror in jurisprudence.

List the decisions.

Enumerate each one's legal reasoning flaws.

I'll give you one week.

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

A week passes.

Chalupa tweets or blogs,

"Jurisprudence? That's for frauds of the legal sort, there is no jurisprudence in my Socialist Utopia, it's just my rules and you're wrong if you disobey or dislike any small part of any single one of 'em. 'nuff said. The genius has spoken."

We inquire further: "This is your take because you read A Frolic of His Own and from that, drew overbroad conclusions and snap judgments premised upon them?"

Our prodigal pup replies,

"Stupid reactionary homophobic cis-trans-patriarchist! Only reactionary ideologues respect The Law in a Repugnican-controlled, neoLib-Dem assimilated government system. My Laws control over whatever ratfucker Scalia might have said in one of his lying screeds."

We soldier on, patiently: "Yes, but as to the legal analysis, you have nothing?"

Chalupa-doo, erstwhile Walter-Mitty-of-a-pseudo-dog, snaps back with arrogance,

"Only the First International, late arriving upon American shores through the Kind marshalled among the nobility (me, & the rest of the True Pure Leftist Democrats), will provide any analysis necessary of the regime we are displacing by the moment. When it is finished, we shall write the history. I will write that history. I AM THE REFERENCE LIBRARIAN AND I KEEP THE TRUTH!"


--Charles F. Oxtrot, and I believe the little stuffed animal has reached a new level of delusion with this one.

Sunday, March 19, 2017

designed for failure

The Sustainable Trails Coalition was formed, supposedly, to fix the misunderstanding of "mechanized transport" as that phrase exists in Wilderness legislation.

However, instead of focusing on the problem --- an unsupported yet consistent allegation by US Forest Service/US Dept of Agriculture personnel and their assigned US Attorneys in which "mechanized" only bans bicycles and not nordic or alpine ski gear, nor any other mechanical assistance used by Wilderness travelers -- the brilliant team of strategists at STC have decided to pursue a piece of legislation instead.

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

Doubtless this proposed bill will have co-sponsors within a handful of Senators from among the 100 total in the Congress.  Grease enough palms and you'll get a wobbly "Yea" from those who perceive their wallets have been rendered marginally thicker.

But how will it play out in the Congress?  When was the last time the Congress admitted that it made an error 52 years ago and rectified that error with full passage of a separate piece of legislation, especially when that newer legislation doesn't correct the error identified?

Please feel free to offer your proofs.

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

The long-standing misinterpretation of "mechanized" is so durable that even the pseudo-authority Wikipedia follows the misinterpretation:

Additionally, areas considered as Wilderness should have no enterprises within them or any motorized/mechanized devices (e.g.; vehicles, motorbikes, or bicycles).

You will not find any statement within the Wilderness Act that explicitly prohibits bicycles while explicitly allowing nordic, randonnee or alpine ski gear.  You will not find any statement explicitly allowing winter Wilderness travel using such ski gear with a pulk.

You will not find anything which endorses the misinterpretation consistently offered as the real, honest understanding of the Wilderness Act.

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

The point of creating official Wilderness was and is to prohibit development of a sort which changes the "wilderness" into Just Another Place in McAmerica with McMansions and McStarbucks and McChipotle and McLuxury Suites.

The point was to preserve the land as it was, or as close thereto as possible, when the USA was founded.

But we have a few problems here.

Horses, and the mechanical means used by humans to ride them, are not prohibited from Wilderness travel.  In the Bob Marshall Wilderness found in the state of Montana, multi-animal pack trains of horses (and sometimes mules) have turned portions of the "trails" running through that Wilderness into what essentially are pockmarked, hammered, vegetation-free highways.  The fact that they are not paved with concrete, asphalt, macadam or crushed gravel doesn't make them any less modern or less antithetical to primitive "wilderness."  In the 1800s, the area now known as the Bob Marshall Wilderness was not a hotbed of horse riding traffic jams with attendant defoliation of a sort normally achieved through judicious application of Agent Orange.

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

The erosion caused by loss of vegetation is well known among fisheries biologists who study humankind's impacts on aquatic ecosystems.

If the point of Wilderness is preservation of an untrammeled, relatively pristine ecosystem, then we've got a big problem with consistently ramping-up (in recent decades, that is) horse-based travel in places like the Bob Marshall.

And that doesn't even reach the issue of immediately adjacent commercial development, which hastens the user impacts by making access to the Wilderness that much easier.

It also doesn't even begin to confront the real problem:  USFS/USDA/USAG personnel reading "mechanized" as prohibiting bicycles while allowing other mechanical assistance.

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

Be sure to BOOST the STC's profile and work, "industry" bro.

Since you don't know jack shit on the subject.

Hell, even Kevin "kidwoo" Bazar doesn't know jack shit on this subject, and he's your fucking go-to guy for everything.


--Charles F. Oxtrot, who knows more in this field than every single scrivener he's read.


Friday, March 17, 2017

is there a Special Ed section in dog training?

I'm a stupid
yes I am a stupid
I'm a stupid
all the live-long day!

Leukocytes and rheostats
catamites and twinkie traps
Fuzzy bears and half&half
sugar in the cream

I have important observations!

We're all here at unsf quite sure you do.  Let us gander:

I read the debates yesterday on whether feeding hungry children increases test scores or not. Anti-feeding the hungry on public dime say no, feeding the hungry on public dime say yes, there's evidence, REAMS AND REAMS OF EVIDENCE PROVING FED CHILDREN LEARN BETTER, and of course, those who'd feed the hungry on public dime are right, as scientifically right as those who say the better you feed the cow you'll slaughter the better the meat.

Some said, though none wearing tribal colors that I read, even if there wasn't solid science proving fed children learn better - say there were studies proving that fed children learn no differently than hungry children: in a just society there are no hungry children.

Oh my, land o' goshen, sakes alive!

Our little Chalupa has allowed himself to find a reason to Hate the Other, believing in his division as stated, not for a moment thinking that nobody wants children to starve, but some people want long term social improvement through increased personal responsibility.

This never dawns on our little chihuahua, he gets the heart strings yanked ferociously by a pitched theme of Cold Hearted Republicans Are At It Again.

Stupid little dog-ish ersatz canid-esque stuffed animal.

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

You're not trying, Jeffrey.

Not trying at all.

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

Elsewhere, as usual, a citation to "Tarzie," who used to shill on behalf of Greenwald & Snowden but now postures as The True Seer.

Whenever Jeff finds his CogDis ramping up, he Tarzies his way to another bout of Sock Puppets Always Knew - Forever!

Can't ever admit wrongness.

Eh, Fonz?


--Paul Behrer, losing the sense of amusement found in another's arrogant naivete.