The Owl Being Dishonest, By Omission.

 Not spreading lies but being dishonest by omission.  To explain.  She was blogging about an article about the climate change case before SCOTUS.  

Her remarks about a quote in the article that comes from a full on CHUD. Right Wing lunatic.  Teaches at Scalia Law School.  Went to Dartmouth.  And the quote isn't even a reply to a reporter's question, but from some webinar he gave sometime ago.  I'll do a copy paste of the text, but the image is how it looks right now.  Things on the web are often fluid:

"ADDED: The NYT quotes lawprof Todd J. Zywicki: "What this case is about is a bunch of one-percenter hippies in Boulder County who want to tell the rest of us how we have to live."   

At least she gave her viewers a guest link.  Here is the fuller context:

"The companies and their supporters argue that lawsuits like Boulder’s are an attempt to regulate the fossil fuel industry via litigation instead of through laws passed by Congress. As Todd J. Zywicki, a professor at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, put it in a recent webinar: “What this case is about is a bunch of one-percenter hippies in Boulder County who want to tell the rest of us how we have to live.”

Context matters.  I am not going to accuse the Owl of deliberately out of bias hiding the context, and blatantly biased POV of the law prof.  But hey.  Properly lumping in professor CHUD with the other anti environment forces of evil, is different than letting it look like it's some random, disinterested legal expert.

While I am giving notes.  The NYT didn't do a thorough enough job identifying the CHUD.  He's not exactly a well known name even among members of the bar.  Even if it was a legal luminary like Tribe.  You still should identify him beyond where he works.  He does have a rep.  Don't assume all readers know it.

So yeah.  It's not personal for me.  I see bullshit.  I call bullshit.

The Owl vs My Low Level STEM Guy Analysis

 This time I get to call out the owl for her own words.  She was responding to some serious and doom and gloom article over at The Nation about AI.  Her words:

"How can that heavy-handed fear mongering not make a reader skeptical?"  

And my thinking is what the hell is wrong with her?  The quick answer is near illiteracy in and ignorance of basic STEM issues and thinking.  Before I list my meager qualifications.  I should say that over the last few days I have saying, writing things about the spectre of:

"Systemic failure in interdependent systems."

And I did a net searach instead of just ripping it off the top of my head:

Systemic failure in interdependent systems occurs when the failure of one component triggers a chain reaction of failures across interconnected networks. This can lead to significant disruptions in critical infrastructures like power, transportation, and finance.

So now is the part where I explain why my mind so easily goes to that kind of thinking.  I used to be a theatre technician;  basically an operating engineer.  Not the same as a design engineer.  But some machinery and technology requires knowing more than turning something on and operating it. Some are parts of interconnected networks;  like the sum total of all the electrical and electronic, and computers used to light a medium sized theatre stage.  And before I left that career for law school, I was there doing that when computer lighting controls were just getting advanced enough they were making specific computers for that job.  

And then I went to a law school with a specialty program in Intellectual Property Law. And the origin story of that school is, it was originally supposed to be part of MIT. But  . . .  reasons.

And I was able enough to keep up with the engineers in that program.  Thinking of things like systemic failure in interdependent systems used to be part of my job.  And then I learned the field of law where being able to think in those terms was pretty much a necessity.  So yeah.  Skepticism is not always a function of ignorance.  But sometimes it is.  

I won't go long on AI, but I will say this much.  People should not be afriad beacuse of the chance AI will become self aware.  It's powerful enough to wreak havoc just because of it's capabilities.  Be afraid of that.  It's really like this.  And I searched to be certain before I posted it at the first place I posted it.  AI is actually worse than a mere computer virus.  It's more like a worm.  It meets the definition of a worm that if a particularly nasty one gets loose . . . . there is definitely a risk of a

Systemic failure in interdependent systems where the failure of one component in one sub network may trigger a chain reaction of failures across interconnected networks. That may lead to significant disruptions in critical infrastructures like power, transportation, and finance.

In other words, some calamity that really can fuck shit up on a global scale.  Anyone who understands systems understand that much.

For years I have called the Owl racist adjacent

Because commenters on her blog routinely throw up white supremancist, right wing shit like the following.  And she leaves it up.  The quote is so replllant it seems worse than what Hasan Piker was criticized over, and on a par with the white supremacist, hateful shit, that chud Laura Loomer recently said.

So before I even quote it, I 100% denounce it as hate speech:

"White Leftists and Islamic theocratic supremacist leftists are arrogant bigots and racists.

It is their basic nature."

I repeat bcause it is so repellant and revolting,  I 100% denounce it as hate speech.

I can go months without looking at her blog.  I can go longer without looking at her comment sections  because, she routinely leaves up, the white supremacist, hateful shit her white supremacist commenters put up.

I don't know how many people still look there.  Seems to me blogging is dead.  Long live Substack.  I guess???

Oh.  While I am bothering to be bothered. The initial post had to do with white supremacist, hateful shitbag JD Vance.  (I don't care who is making his children.  Racist plantation owners made bi-racial babies, while still being racists.)  Apparently, candidate Dr. El-Sayed made a very strong inference that  white supremacist, hateful shitbag JD Vance's grandparents might not approve of his East Indian wife, and bi-racial children.  And  white supremacist, hateful shitbag JD Vance's reply was, of all frames:  

'Keep my wife's name the hell out of your mouth'

Funny, how the white man goes all in with the Black vernacular, trying to sound tough.  But more hilarious is the idiotic rhetorical trick he is attempting to play.  The quote was more about the assumed racist grandparents, than the wife.  This is the same sort of idiotic rhetorical trick the maggots used over the quote about adjudicated rapist in a civil trial, djt, and his likely wanting to tap his young pretty assistant's ass, than was about his assistant and her desires.  Who is certifiable insane.  For all we know, she might have fantasies about having her ass tapped by the fat racist with, allegely, a tiny mushroom.

I can't go any further with the image.  

Point is, using the object of the sentence as if it were the  subject.  Just to go all Karen on someone's ass  and complain.  Are any of these fuckers fluent in English?

 

White People, Who Are Not Anti-Racists, Need to Shut Up About Racism.

 Particularly the blogger I call the Owl.

Old White Lady.

Anyway.  Instead of doing her frequent shit stirring kind of post.  Where she throws up links and or quotes, but doesn't comment.  She dove in on the non-traversey about the new Asian music category for the Grammys.   Her remarks:   

Here's how I'd frame the question: Why don't the Grammys have a category called White Pop Music?

There are 2 directions to go with that question. You could say it's white supremacy or you could say it's anti-racism. It's part of white supremacy if there's an assumption that what white people do is the main thing and what other people do is subordinate — a genre or subgenre. But to have a category labeled "white" would feel — would be —  racist. 

My remarks to that.  I object to that bizarre, binary framing.  It clearly could be argued more ways than that.  Nuanced ways.  In fairness to her,  that is not her only remarks.  Let me look at that again before I say more.  Ok.  She says a little more, and quotes form her source article.  This is the more useful quote:

 "Pop music in America is an extension of whiteness and works just like it — it has no defined borders; it expands and contracts to maintain its dominion; it tells us that nothing too ethnic can have universal appeal."

Time for terminology  boys and girls.  

Hegemony refers to the dominance of one group over another, supported by legitimating norms and ideas.

Here in the USA  in the year 2026, white people still dominate the culture.  Despite how much other ethnic groups have influenced the culture.  The market is still greatly white folk.  And the businesses tend to be run by white folk.  It's not as full a hegemony as it was 125 years ago.  But white folk is still is the main market and management.

The dominant strains of the Entertainment world do not exceed the population. Entertainment is an industry.  People are trying to make bank!

I want to segue to that racist piece of shit Rep. Brandon Gill.  Who was lionized by other GOP racists for the shit he pulled at a hearing within the past couple weeks.  Trying to tee up a white supremacy culture war gotcha.  He asked some witness from the other side whether or not Mickey Mouse is racist?

I could go long.  I have that degree in Theatre and my first career was in media/entertainment.  And I know my American history.  So If it were me in the witness seat, I could have answered:  

"Well.  The original Mickey Mouse animated short, "Steamboat Willie,"  was released in the late 1920s. An extremely racist time in America.  And to be blunt.  All of American popular entertainment, back then, was tainted by racism.  And Mr. Congressman.  I could give a one hour lecture, or more,  about all that right now.  But that would go much farther than your time."

Yes.  And as a sidebar.  Current or former litigators are or at least can be demonic on the witness stand.  We know the goal is to knock the cross examiner off their stride.  You don't have to defeat them.  It's more effective to avoid arguing with them than get combative.  Just deprive them of their flow.

Anyway, entertainment follows the culture.  However.  And I did not look at the original article yet.  But I know a little something about the music biz.  There is ample history of artists "charting" in multiple categories for the same song/record/album.  And I think some have even won Grammys like that too.  Missing from the Owl's remarks if not also the article she quotes, is the idea of being a "crossover artist."

So maybe some people who don't know shit about issues of race in society should not fucking talk about that.  Likewise, if you don't know shit how the music biz works.

Lemme do a quick search.

So the internet tells me it has happened.  At least one song won in both Pop and R&B the same year.  Shit I am overthinking it.   Bad Bunny won in two categories for the same album this past round.  The top honor for "Album of the Year," and "Best Musica Urbana."  So yeah.  Despite the history of flat out racism in entertainment.  Things are much different now than 100 or more years ago.  If someone has their mind set to be a dick about it.  And doesn't know dick about the context, and or fails to do the basic research you might think Grammy categories are exclusive.  That is simple minded thinking.

As a whole.  the system is more like a potential of Venn Diagrams.  I won't get into how to get specific nominations for specific categories.  But hey.  It's possible to crossover.  You can win in a meta category and a niche.  Go for it!

America Blows!

 

Just look at the chart.

Here we are, on the eve of what they are calling the 250th anniversary of America.  I kind of get why they call the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence that.  But that is kinda not really an accurate and honest description.  The United States of America was still years away.  Pending not only a good outcome in the war against Britain.  But the joining of independent colonies into something that resembled a nation.  

And here in 2026.  This nation is failing.  We really don't have much to celebrate, thanks to Republicans.  Current POTUS has greater power than King George III had.  

Not good!

Now I am not in the mood to go long.  So let me set up the remark.  Following the SCOTUS decision to actually follow the language of the 14th Amendment.  A friend from law school days segued from his remarks of appreciation of that to his personal declaration.  His faith that one day even if only merely possibly being able to sit on that court himself, lead to my reply:

Better you than me.

But my fantasy ambition is to be on the panel that rewrites Article III. And Articles I and II as well.

Be aware. My desire is to eliminate the office of full time Associate Justice and expand the circuits and have temp AJs rotate on and back off after one year assignments.

I believe the US Constitution has failed, and needs a major rewrite.  Love the Declaration all you damn well like.  You do you, boo.  But I have little time to waste on that, when the actual government if the nation is morphing into something the signers and the framers would find utterly repugnant.

JMO.

But I live in the NYC area,  And there will be tall ships.  They are already slipping into the city up the mighty Hudson River.  I like boats, ships. I will go look at them, if only for a few hot minutes.

But other than that?  I am skipping this party.  Likely will take in a Broadway show, instead.

I need more a proper distraction, as opposed to a delusional mythology about the greatness of America.  America blows!

The OWL and the Batya Cat.

 Hey, look at me.  I managed to make a reference to Batya Unger-Sargon, without grabbing for the low hanging fruit of making a play on Batya's name, and subbing, sarcastically Batty.  Anyway.

For those of you not familiar, she is the allegedly former left of center, allegedly a journalist.  But even if she somehow qualifies as an opinion journalist?  On account of having such a gig?  I don't really consider opinion sharers to be journalists, on account of not following the ethnical, and other rules for real journalists.

Anyway, that maga, domestic Hitler fluffer has been making the rounds, wherever she seems she still can, to spew a favorable opinion of a layman's analysis of the insanely corrupt indictment against Former FBI Dir. Comey, and spew related dishonest talking points.  And she is one of the liars making the dishonest argument that the American "left" if not more specifically Democrats, are the worst offenders regarding violent rhetoric.

Now, a fact check.  In the past year, alleged incidents and "plots" from people identified as left of center has gone up and above the right wing loons.  But note, is more for 2025 then it has been in decades.  My response to that is firstly.  Lumping actual completed criminal acts together with "plots" is adding too much to the graph.  If you want an accurate picture, separate that shit. Make the chart just about actual acts of violence, not people thinking about maybe doing violence.

And after that?  Since we have a right wing, authoritarian regime that is out there in a unprecedented way for America, cracking down on the population?  With political bigotry, bias, and prejudice aforethought? Shit.  Why would any right wing Americans need to go out and commit hate crimes against the people they hate on their own?  

Wanna go beyond merely owning the libs and the browns and the Blacks?  Wanna  kick their asses and bust their skulls?  Join ICE!  They are recruiting!  Promising bonuses, and new and recently lowered standards! 

The overall 2025 figure does not include acts of violence committed by the Federal government and any right wing controlled states or cities.  Get my point?  The figure isn't cooked as much as it is technically inaccurate as far as actual, political violent acts committed.  And state sponsored violence is not beyond the category of political violence.  It's not exempt as data, even if arrests and convictions for that are not the rule.

Anyway, the OWL saw fit to do one of her stir the pot posts.   She shared without comment or context, some tweet from Batya, where she asserts with out any evidence at all:

"but the organizations producing that data are cooking the books so they can smear the Right with the Left's crimes.?

Reference to what I said about not following the ethnical, and other rules for real journalists.  

Further reference to what is the actual source of the data Batya blows off as cooked books, and smears.  And that would be DOJ stats, State and local stats.  Data culled from Federal and state and local criminal court filings.  And the kind of researchers who have jobs to track that shit, and if it's a proper honest academic job?  What ever they publish is instantly subject to informal if not quickly, formal peer review.

Parting shot (metaphorically speaking.)  Lately on my facebook wall, I have been posting pics and memes often with either of the following:

"Fucking republicans!"

Or "Fucking maga republicans."

And I am remind of the time I told a republican nut job lady I made the mistake of getting emotionally involved with, to fuck off.

She immediately accused me of making a violent reference.  So yes.  There is nothing new about fucking republicans escalating any criticism, push back, resistance, or negative comment as if it were some violent threat against them.  Because they are liars.  And delusional.  And very thin skinned.

Defending Racist Bullshit Is Like Promoting It. OWL!

 But I am not going to flat out call her a racist for how she covered the latest racist, white supremacist scandal caused by orange Hitler.  However, I call the difference a difference without distinction.

She made two posts about it as of this point in time.  In neither does she call it out for the racist horror it is.  In the first, she publishes what eventually became the current official excuse.  Sime staffer did it.  Orange Hitler admitted watching the first part.  but said he never saw the other part.  In her second one, she at least recognizes that the excuse could be bullshit, or as she says, "Or that's what Karoline Leavitt wants us to believe."

She is less interested in the blatant, psychopathic racism of the current POTUS than she is about his," social media method."  Which is where the second post goes  and ends.  She even posted a vid allegedly about that.  I lasted about 36 seconds.  He is revolting.  I was hoping there was going to at least be some analysis, but it was just him being his insane racist self.  That is why I barely got past half a minute.  That is about all I can take of him.  He is that revolting.

Anyway, her take on this latest racist, white supremacist scandal caused by orange Hitler says all we need to know about her, to judge her.  I would argue.

He Seems Incoherent Because He is!

 I am not going to make this so  much about the OWL.  But she posted something idiotic on her blog today.  Essentially she is one of the people who still give credit to orange Hitler's incoherent communication style under the label he uses for it.  The weave.  

Maybe I have spent too many hours reading psychology texts, and keeping up with the revisions and new editions of  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (currently Fifth Edition, to fall for that shit.

Add to that my BA in one of the story telling arts, Theatre.  And all the Communications and Video and Lit classes taken, and it is easy for me to get to the point.  An incoherent communication style, is evidence of an incoherent communication style.  Which itself is compelling evidence of a person having an incoherent mind.  

Particularly as his mental state, said casually and not as a credentialed professional's diagnosis, is demented and deteriorating.  I have to wonder about anyone still buying into that witless drivel about how its a deliberate choice.  He's the president of the fucking USA!  He isn't an avant garde, Hip Hop playwright and or beat box poet.  Perhaps not under Article II specifically, but as national chief executive, it is at least within the reasonable expected duties to be able to clearly articulate things about the nation and his administration of it's affairs, instead of doing "art."

No one should think why can't he do both?  There barely is enough time in the day for even more able people to do "the job."  And this bitch has less talent than a bucket of vomit.  So he fails at both, far as I see.

I am reminded of a sweet, and very attractive girl who worked on the same case with me, years ago.  Our office was located near NYC's Madison Sq. Park.  A lot of homeless people and otherwise mentally dysfunctional folk could be found there, any given day.  So one day we were talking about those kinds of people.  She mentioned to me something about how she liked talking to them.  I, a former family court lawyer who had several clients with issues, previously, could and did not agree.  I said flat out, I try to avoid them.    I literally actually backed away from her, to make a visual point.

Now I an not going to say only crazy people want to talk to crazy people.  But most of the people I know who do are either licensed mental health professionals, or people like lawyers who have a professional reason.

Not all that long after that chat, she got fired.  Her work was usually below quota, but one day she managed to not do any work at all.  I ain't saying she was crazy.  She wasn't incoherent.  But girl was not really living deeply enough in the usual reality most people I know exist in.

As if she had her own version of the weave for how she perceived life, significantly different than the reality based people have.

I am trying to be polite.  She was cute, and nothing but nice to me.  But yeah. Just past eccentric I would have to say.  The kind of difference the current version of the DSM would place on a spectrum you would not want to be, if being considered mostly normal matters to you at least.

Some people just don't give a fuck.

Oh, and one last thing.  orange Hitler is bat shit crazy, and on the bad side of the spectrum for several of these disorders.  Nevermind.  He is pushing 80.  A very unhealthy man, who likely has some organic brain problems that we likely will never know about, for sure.

I will actually thank the O.W.L. for a change

 I did a net search for, "People who are huffy and don't know it's not a good thing."  The OWL triggered that because, today she posted a link to the Oscar's nominations, with the following huffy, to my mind at least, comment:

"I don't think I've ever been less interested in the nominations. I haven't seen or been interested in seeing any of these movies. "

I am reminded of those tiresome, right wing idiots who pretend the earliest years of SNL were the only good years.  Fucking imbeciles.  Likely their dislike of the show goes back to the Reagan era.  Because they are fucking  imbeciles who hate their psychopathic, political figures being mocked.  But I digress.

But my search led to some good amusement.  I got a link for the definition of "huffy" on Urban Dictionary.  And I suppose there have been fakes for years.  I remember seeing specific people being called out, so yea.  It's not a reliable source.  But as there were at least three wildly divergent,sex  fetish themed definitions, I am thinking all were fugazys.

But I was amused.

Last note.  I am willing to guess there might actually be some actual humans who give a fuck what the OWL thinks about contemporary cinema.  Not me.  Not for that.  Not for any topic.  When she gets huffy like that, it makes me think she is something of a watered-down Karen.  Not likely to have a full meltdown in public over stupid, ridiculous shit.  But yeah. Likely often thinks like that.  And posts it on her blog with no self-awareness that . . . passive-aggressive, Karen style huffy remarks are not a good thing."

Most Blatantly Racist Blog from the OWL

 Would she be making this much stink of it were white asses? 

The way her brain functions.  SMH.

Is Overuse of AI a Sign of Being a Moron? How About Habitual Shallow Thinking?

 The owl is still using the racist AI.  But that is not the point of this post.  She has bought fully in, at least says she has.  There is the theory that CBS actually didn't cancel Colbert's late-night show because of political pressure.  The argument is that if they really wanted to shut him up, why did they give him 10 months to stay on air?

That is sophistry:

Sophistry refers to subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation that appears plausible but is often misleading or fallacious. It originated from ancient Greek philosophers known as sophists, who were skilled in rhetoric but later gained a negative reputation for their questionable reasoning methods. Merriam-Webster Wikipedia

And morons fall for that shit.  

Here is the problem with that moronic argument.  I will start with the truism, that two or more things can be true at the same time.  Going the next level up, false choices are false.  We don't really know all the possible reasons that went into the decision.  Failing to allow for the possibility of more than one thing being behind the decision, is moronic.

Next is the human limitation point.  Humans tend to fucking suck at, as in having pretty much no ability to read other people's minds.  

And I will end on the Aaron Burr point.  From the musical, one of that character's lead songs is the one where he sings about wanting to be in the room where it happens.  If someone wasn't in not only what ever real or virtual space where the decision was made, one was not in the room where it happened, so at best is just guessing.  Which humans suck at.

Any of a number of explanations could be the truth here.  Personally, I immediately guessed the gloves would be off for the remainder of the show's run.  And I watched last night, and was quickly proven right.  There was a show of solidarity with the other late-night hosts being in the studio audience.  Jolly good fun!  However.  Since we don't know what happened in the room.  There could have been some deal where network brass greed to capitulate to the political pressure.  And bargained for the timing, hoping Colbert would go out in a blaze.  

I will leave it there.  Yes, I used to work at CBS's hq.  40 years ago.  So any manager I could have known then is long gone now.  But I can easily imagine some of the lawyers and network brass thinking . . . . be careful what you wish for bitches.  We do this TV thing for a living.

 

Part Deux. Do You Want People

 To believe you are a Nazi sympathizer, lady? 

Despite the notorious scandal of the  nazification of Grok's coding.  The Owl is still posting about using it. 

I can't even construct an appropriate comparison.  I can recall the famous old one about buying Playboy magazine for the articles.  Implying that the person isn't even looking at the nude girly pics.  But that doesn't quite work.

Some asshole who has been called out for white supremacist racist bullshit.  Has a social media site he owns. He is the true boss.  And that platform has an AI that is in house.  At least in the, from, somewhere in the boss's house.  And not for the first time, the AI has spewed racist shit.  But this time it went full nazified? 

And the little old lady blogger blogs about the story.  And then goes back to blogging about still using the nazified AI?

Reach your own conclusions about Althouse.  I have.

Put Down and Walk Away From the Grok, Althouse!

 Call this a distraction from the nazification of the American Federal Government, by orange hitler.  I have updated my coinage of orangenazi to orange hitler.  And proud of it, but sad because of the reasons I feel it is warranted.  But I am supposed to be avoiding that.  So come on trivial shit!  

Ann Althouse has long had a very annoying and childish habit of posting trashy and or trendy articles, and acting as if that stupid shit was really real.  For example, she got on a tangent today, based on the specifically Italian variant of an old wives' tale.  Ya know the one about catching cold?  That shit.  Asking rhetorical questions as if?  As if that is biologically or medically true?

Hey lady!  You are connected to the WWW!  A simple search query,  and reading what some reputable medical entity or MD says, can answer that.  And in my words.  Fuck no!  Fuck no!  You don't catch cold, or the Italian version of the fuck no not real wives' tale, "colpo d’aria,"  and get sick that way.  

"Colds" are caused by germs.   I learned that actually before I was 16 and took that class in Bacteriology.  But that class really hammered in the truth of it.  The kids in the class were given petri dishes.  That we planted in various places, just to see what germs would grow over a week or two.

But let me be clear.  She is free to do and repeat whatever ignorant nonsense she likes.  And I am free to call her out on it.  Ignorant!  I  believe in her right to be wrong.  And I believe in my right to mock her for it.

Speaking of earned mockery.  She still is pumping shit into Grok, and publishing the returns as if it is anything a reasonable, rational person should follow.  Like I said.   I  believe in her right to be wrong.  But seriously, lady.  Grok?  The AI owned by muskrat?  Seriously?

In the interest of full disclosure.  I went on a tear lately.  I was trying to change my google to properly function without abusing me by throwing some shitty AI response at the top of my return search list.  In short.  I ended up changing the default search engine it uses to duckduckgo.  So I am spared the mind killing shit that is what ever AI that google uses.  However, I still get suggested top returns from the duck.   They have an AI there too, but it is optional.  Less of an Orwellian horror than other  search AI.  And not really a chatbot.  So yeah.  Less of a mind killer.  

Why keep your own critical thinking skills sharp, when you can let some billionaire bozo or the weird little shits who work for them spoon feed you what they want you to believe?  I will tell you bitches why!  Because Descartes was correct.  "Cogito ergo sum!"

Here is a screenshot from some article that matches my opinion.  So it must be the correct answer.

(I know it doesn't really work that way.  I trust that the study was legit, I do say.)

I am not calling the Owl a nazi lover, but . . .

 Before I go any further.  Consider this an example of how correlation is not necessarily causation.  Or.  In this case.  It's less a matter of causation, than it is transitive property stuff.   

Anyway.  The owl seems to have a liking for grok.  Which as I call him, Muskrat is lately using to push what is a flat out, white supremacist bullshit.  I just round all that kind of shit off to being nazi shit.  It's an easier reference than Boer or South African racist shit.

But I would admit it is not fair at all to say that merely because she likes grok and is,seems overly sympathetic to as I call him, the orangenazi, that she herself is a nazi lover.  But.  Some people are making that connection.  I have to guess.

Notorious Nazi Musk Being a Nazi. Still and Always?

That is Pretty Much Vile, IMO. Althouse.

I have gone months without mentioning the owl.  Not that she has stopped posting things so weird and twisted, it hurts my pretty brain.  Because her frequent defenses of orangenazi and his racist regime, are sickening.   And I am at the point where shit is so vile and abusive in America, that even the rhetoric is capable of giving me headaches.  But this example of brain vomit is hitting me in a particularly toxic way.

My default is you do you, let me do me.  Let everyone do their shit, as long as their shit doesn't interfere with someone else's shit, to do their shit as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's shit.  I took that out a couple more iterations than usual to make a particular point.

I find love of one's "country" to be an absurd idea.  I usually just avoid the topic if it comes up IRL.  But me doing my shit is to on the one hand, let people think what they want.  As I like to say.  My life became a little less stressful once I understood.  People have a right to be wrong.  Leave them to it.  However.  Some lines of thinking lead people to berate people for no more of a violation than, "Hey.  That person doesn't think as I do.  That means I get to abuse them.  For not thinking as I do."

And shit like patriotic thinking too easily leads to abuse of others, for no greater a violation than thinking differently from the other observer.  Belief is one thing.  People have a right to be wrong.  But abusing people is where it really becomes socially indefensible a thing.

If one "loves their country," what ever the fuck that means.  And it must mean different things to different  people.  On account of, we are not dealing with absolute and or objective truths, and as well, people being different from other people, a lot of the time.  So have at it, as far and limited to your own beliefs.  But people do not have any right at all to make demands of other people to be and or think as they themselves do.  That is evil.  Don't be evil.  Let everyone do their shit, as long as their shit doesn't interfere with someone else's shit, to do their shit as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's shit.

Personally.  I am warm to the idea of going semi expat.  If not the full monty.  You do you boo!

I don't owe the USA shit.  Fuck anyone who believes either directly or indirectly, they have a right to abuse me for wanting to call it quits.  I have my limits, fuck you, damn it.  You ain't my momma, or the boss of me!  And I am very good at setting boundaries!

The USA actually hasn't done shit for me in a concrete meaningful way, because it only is an abstract concept.  It is not a human being.  It really isn't even an association.

Now there is this thing called the government.  Very few people would say they love the government. 

And there is the real estate.  Rocks, and water, and shit that grows.  But there is a large spectrum of feeling for the real estate, from utter contemptuous rape and abuse of it, to the most devoted of husbandry.

And finally, there is the "nation."  In other words, the people.  And based on my experience living within the government boundaries of the piece of real estate.  Seems to me, the kind of American most likely to run around saying shit like how much they love "their country," tend to hate more than half of the people in that "country."  So I really don't know what the fuck any one person means, when they say, they love "their country,"

So yeah.  I think it is flat out vile to criticize people for being ready to call it quits, and not show love for an abstract concept.  And as well, it is vile and evil to assert people got to stick around if they wanna go.  That is some flat-out evil thinking.

I am a firm believer in personal liberty.  We all are free to to vote with our wallets and or our feet.  Fuck an one who says otherwise.  This a a default of how life is supposed to be, a society that actually respects individual liberty.

I am Not Calling The Owl a Racist. But That Clearly is Racist Bullshit

 Each and every motherfucking time a white person, criticizes Black people, in this case,  Kimberlé Crenshaw, with the words of another Black person.  Who usually is . . . surprise!  A conservative; in this case a Black British conservative, Kemi Badenoch.  Who proves herself to be as ignorant as white supremacist American conservatives, who criticize CRT without having done the reading.

How the fuck can any sane, rational, fair minded person take seriously the person who criticizes an entire, and decades old social and legal philosophy, without that person ever having done the reading?

This lady admits to having never read at least Kimberlé Crenshaw.  And yet has lots of opinions about those writing, those ideas.  But that is her fucking damage.  But there is no fucking excuse for some old white lady in  America to platform that shit.  

Not a defense of the views of the Black British Conservative.  All conservatives believe in an inherently evil ideology.  I have been saying that since a was fucking 12.  or 13.  But this lady was born in Nigeria.  And I don't know when she immigrated to the UK.  But the point is.  She clearly doesn't know shit about the contents of the data set represented by a Venn Diagram of American law, and America's history of white supremacy.

This lady admits that.  She proudly says she did not do the reading.  And whatever life she has lived, it wasn't even in The Americas, never mind the US.

No matter how pathetic and ignorant the Black British Conservative might be.  Not as pathetic as the retired white American former Con Law Prof is, for missing all that was wrong with the quote, and her platforming of it.

Anyway. Imma gonna link it.  And not talk about the owl again this year, if ever.

I don't make New Years promises.  But I will have aspirations, time to time, some of the time.

Ann Althouse Platforming Black on Black Crime. I Mean Racist Bullshit.

 

I Won't Mock The Owl. I Will Show You What She Wrote.

 Confession.  Time spent on the lazy thinking this retired con law prof uses, every day of her life, seemingly, is a distraction from politics.  And starting months ago.  I started cutting down.  As a related matter. Based on my years on this rock, I believe political reporting and commentary is at a low point. Lazy thinking is everywhere, seems.  We can blame the interwebnetubes.  But many people with experience and training in the right disciplines say and agree.  Humans be like that.  Anyway . . .

"Tell me about an "interpretative system" that is better than Jordan Peterson's "whim." He's one man, interpreting things. If my "job" is to "sit still" and take in his ideas, how is that different from reading any book? The author isn't here with me, the reader, to be "argued with." But I buy the Kindle version and excerpt any passage I want to pick apart, and I do my own writing here on this blog, which you are sitting still and reading. If you are "overtaken with apathy," you stop reading. If you want to argue, you go into the comments section. If it's just too much interpretation, coming at you endlessly, take a break. Nobody said you had to read this all at once. I heard that Elon Musk read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica when he was 9 years old. That's unusual, and it's not what the encyclopedia writers had in mind."

She wrote and published that.  And could not tell it was not terribly coherent?

And if only to be more coherent myself.  This is from her blogged "review"  of some real writer's review of Jordan Peterson's newest trash output.  For those of you who don't know about that guy.  He is the Canadian ex Psychology professor, who got fired over some refusal to use preferred pronouns, some idiotic "principled" in his disordered mind, stand.  And he quickly became a darling of the worldwide, right wing conservative idiot's circle.  And he had a physical and mental breakdown from "the road' and or other reasons.  

And once recovered?  I say questioningly. He went back to telling other people how they should live their lives, seemingly oblivious to his own failure to get, have, and keep his own shit together.

Anyway.  The real reviewer was making the the overall and some specific points about how incoherent the book is.

Personally, I never found the guy to be at all coherent except when plagiarizing, and not fucking up the bits he plagiarizes.  And as a fan of Jungian Analysis, and the work of the late, great Joseph Campbell.  Based on this review, I can say Peterson is at least greatly borrowing from those guys.  And likely fucking up the bits he plagiarizes.

Anyway.  There is your context.  Now for the critical observation about the Owl's lazy childish thinking.  And I think she is sort of sympathetic regarding Peterson.  And it that is true that could be a factor why, when viewed as a chunk.  Her point of view and message seems to boil down to:

How dare you review his book, while reviewing his book?

Before I "Unpack" her Childish Reasoning. The Tale of the Mugato Expert.

 "Star Trek Lower Decks," is by far my favorite "TV" show.  I have, for all intents and purposes, been a Trek fan all my damn life.  And STLD is a irreverent, but loving animated comedy, in the realm of that franchise.

Moving to the point.  In one episode, a couple lower ranking officers of the ship, are running in fear from these scary alien creatures;  Mugatos.  And they encounter a self described Mugato expert who has two books on Mugatos.   But before long, they learn this "expert" only has, as in bought and read two books.  He did not research or write them.

He gets mauled, destroyed by a Mugato.  Surely, greatly, due to his not really being an expert in them, really.  But of course, that was the joke!

On to the Owl.  Who clearly was not joking.  On her blog today, she platformed some article dealing with, "The obesity crisis."  But her headline is:

"Why doesn't this article even mention RFK jr?"

Um.  Because it isn't about him?  

Because he isn't in the health related appointment yet?

And my favorite reason.  He isn't an expert on any health related issue or field.  Actually.

Let us review his credentials, and lack thereof.  He once was considered one of the most successful environmental law litigators.  And that doesn't even make him an expert on environmental science.  Never mind any other field of science.

If you would think a lawyer should know that is an objective fact?  The Owl is happy to fail to meet that minimal level of understanding about the world and the people in it.  I would say, at least a sixth grader should be that bright, to get that much!

Some Examples of White Privilege.

 If not, some internalized white supremacist leanings. 

Pining for the good old days, when racist jokes were largely tolerated.

Pretending they are still tolerated.

Saying people who criticize you for making racist jokes, don't have a sense of humor.

Saying people who get upset over racist jokes, need to just get over it.  That is what JD Vance said. 

Thinking you don't have to clearly apologize, when the warm up act for your show tells flat out racist jokes.

And lastly.  Having a hard time describing flat out racist jokes, as flat out racist. 

That is what the Owl did.  Or didn't do.

And I Was Quietly Done With The Owl.

 But this one was too fucking weird to go unshared.

To recap.  The owl is a retired law prof and still blogger who, from her unique POV, blogs.  Sometimes she comes across as a kind of syntax Nazi.  Other times she comes across as a what the fuck you talking bout?  

Try this one.  To  set it up, she posted about some article in the Times, and she is nitpicking the word choices.  

"I wonder how the NYT heard the "quiet conversations" and how, assuming you could hear them, you would know that the interlocutors had a particular feeling and it was unshakable, and how, assuming you would know that, the feelers of the unshaken feeling felt that they knew the contents of the mind of the man in her life, that he both wants to support the woman and doesn't want to admit he's having trouble doing what he thinks he is trying to do."

Firstly.  She speculates all the fucking time, so I do not get why she is so confused by people maybe  speculating.

Secondly,  a quiet conversation is not the same as silent.  Sheesh.

Thirdly, why should everyone be totally literal, even?  Who made her the boss of all media?

Lastly.  I am not going to put her in the same deteriorating mental state category as bozo.  He who is the maga man candidate.  However if a woman spoke like that to me on a first date, I would end it fast, and never want to repeat.