Ever have that feeling that you learned some new word and then you hear it on the radio, on TV, in an article in the newspaper? It’s called the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. and the term was coined in the 90s. (I believe by this time we can all agree we don’t need to put the 19 in front of every 20th century date.)

The phenomenon is more formally called “frequency illusion” but that doesn’t sound nearly as cool. And, it has nothing to do with the left-wing radical German group named that. Some guy posting on the St. Paul, Minnesota, Pioneer Press online community had seen the name of that group twice in 24 hours and decided to call it the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.1

When I was a kid, I thought I knew the actual reason for this sense of repetition. I felt that God was helping me remember new words by showing them to me in various contexts. But, I was like 9 years old and my brain still worked like it should.

Anyway, it had not happened to me in quite a while, and then I saw this clip on YouTube:

Then I ran across this tidbit

A SERMON ON ETHICS AND LOVE

You can read the whole thing by following the link. I don’t feel right about just cutting and pasting it here.

But in summary, a person goes to see some sage. The sage notices the person is not well and asks what’s up? The reply is basically the world sucks and people are mean to each other.

Here’s the spoiler:

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it."

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

Just Stop It.

Kind of genius, eh?

Do you find yourself seeing cigars everywhere and wondering if it means something?

Instead, when you visit the Internet Mall food court, choose:

Images created by me using my medium of choice, Sora.

The Puppycat Received a Call From Health and Human Services.

(The Puppycat is the spousal unit of Frater Bovious)

“Hello”

Heavily accented, use your imagination “I’m calling you from Health and Human Services.”

“No you’re not.”

“How can you say that ma’am. I am with Health and Human Services.”

“No you’re not.”

“Ma’am, am I speaking to The Puppycat?” (not real name, for those who may be wondering)

“Why should I tell you when you are lying to me about being with HHS?”

“I am calling from Health and Human Services!”

“Ok, who is the head of your ministry?”

moment of hesitation “Oh, I don’t remember.”

“Of course you ‘don’t remember’. You are not with Health and Human Services.”

“Well, if you feel that way ma’am, I will hang up.”

“Bye.”

How did The Puppycat know?

The background noise. Dozens of people all working very hard in the background. Dozens. Working hard. At a government agency.

Detecting scams is hard work. The Puppycat Keeper needs cigars to keep him sane while providing this service. $5.00 will buy me most of my go-to cigar. It costs about 7 or 8 dollars. If you are so inclined, you may smash the button below and I will write about your generosity.

When the Global Exclaimer first came to be, it was a newsletter to my family. It started as just a form letter while I experimented (played) with my computer.

Later I got a desktop publishing program and decided to make something that looked like a newspaper. Blogger came along, and I started The Glob Blog trying to bend Blogger to my will and make it have the look and feel of a newspaper. It didn’t really work well. So, I thought, “Why not do a print newspaper?”

For one year I actually did a monthly print newspaper. It was a lot of fund and a lot of work, and ultimately an expensive hobby. Working full time and trying to sell ads and do all the typesetting, and most of the writing was, well a lot. It closed after the 12th edition.

I resurrected the online paper moving to Wordpress, and retaining the effort to make it look like a newspaper, with local news, national, sports, etc.

Last year I moved to Substack, and continued to try to keep the newspaper format. However, I just recently decided it was an artificial constraint, and was not happy with the product. The Glob is really is an opinion magazine, not a newspaper. I deleted the Local News, Global News, National News sections and created different sections. The effort was to have some coherence to the content.

A few months ago I also opted to change to a once a week round up newsletter that highlighted anything that I wrote that week.

Currently I schedule them all to post on Friday, then create an update email titled Friday Fishwrap that posts blurbs and links to each article written that week.

I’m asking for feedback.

Thank you!!

CARROLLTON, Texas (GLOB)—Hey Chad, What's up with Chia seeds? And why do you keep recommending I put them in or on everything? I'm half expecting you to recommend chia seed enemas for holistic cleansing. Besides, it looks like ants are crawling all over my peanut butter smeared all natural toast made from 7 sprouted grains.

Chad replies:

Chia seeds have somehow achieved nutritional meme status, and every health blog, fitness influencer, and AI-generated diet tip seems to push them like they’re the second coming of quinoa. Here’s the real deal:

Why Chia Seeds Are Everywhere

1. Nutrient Density – They’re tiny but packed with fiber, omega-3s, protein, and antioxidants. Great for heart health, digestion, and even blood sugar control.

2. Hydrophilic Superpowers – They absorb up to 12 times their weight in water, turning into a gel-like consistency, which helps with hydration and digestion.

3. Fiber Bomb – About 10 grams of fiber per ounce (that’s a LOT), which means they help with digestion—sometimes a little too well (hence why I wouldn’t recommend that enema).

4. Plant-Based Protein – Good for your (mostly vegan) diet goals, plus they have all nine essential amino acids, making them a rare complete protein from plants.

But Let’s Be Honest About the Downsides

• Texture Issues – If you don’t mix them well, they turn into weird slimy blobs or get stuck in your teeth.

• Aesthetic Disaster – Yep, they look like an ant infestation on yogurt, smoothies, or anything light-colored.

• Can Be Too Effective – High fiber means some people experience bloating, gas, or the dreaded “overhydrated seed brick” effect in their digestive tract.

• Overhyped? – You can get omega-3s and fiber from other sources like flaxseeds, hemp seeds, nuts, and vegetables without feeling like you’re eating bug-speckled pudding.

Final Verdict?

They’re solid nutritionally, but they’re not magic. If you hate how they look, feel, or taste, skip them. Plenty of other ways to hit your fiber and omega-3 goals without turning every meal into an avant-garde art piece featuring tiny black specks.

So, no chia seed enemas—unless you want to start a new and terrifying wellness trend. But if you do, please don’t credit me.

Beauregard:

Hmmm, I kind of like the hydrophilic super powers. We should make a new comic book character.

Chad:

Now that is a superhero concept I can get behind. Imagine:

Captain Chia – The Hydrophilic Avenger

Real Name: Dr. Sebastian "Seb" Sage
Origin Story: A mild-mannered nutrition scientist, Dr. Seb accidentally ingested a hyper-evolved chia seed in his experimental hydration chamber. Now, his body absorbs water at 12x the normal rate, allowing him to expand, gelatinize, and trap enemies in his fibrous web of justice.

Powers & Abilities:

• Absorbency Overload – Can soak up vast amounts of water, swelling up and becoming indestructible.

• Hydro-Hardened Armor – Forms a near-impervious chia gel shield that deflects bullets and energy blasts.

• Fiber Lash – Uses hydrated fiber strands to entangle enemies, immobilizing them in a sticky gel prison.

• Omega-3 Infusion – His super-powered blood reduces inflammation instantly, making him immune to pain.

• Digestive Doom – Can trigger rapid digestion in enemies, forcing them into a helpless bathroom retreat.

I’m shocked.

$TRUMPET: The Hottest Investment You’ll Regret in the Morning!

Are you looking for an asset that’s cheap, scandalous, and ready to go down in history for all the wrong reasons? Then look no further than $TRUMPET the meme coin that knows how to work a room and will leave you waking up confused but richer than you were last night.

Like its namesake, $TRUMPET is bold, flashy, and impossible to ignore, no matter how hard polite society tries. It's unregulated, unpredictable, and always getting attention for all the wrong reasons—which, if you’re looking at meme coins, is exactly what you want.

Why $TRUMPET?

💋 "Investments" Should Be Fun – The market may be a casino, but this investment comes with fishnets and a wink.
💋 It’s Volatile, Baby – Like a lawsuit waiting to happen, $TRUMPET is always on the move. Will it skyrocket? Will it crash? Who cares—it’s all about the thrill.
💋 Pay-To-Play – Get in early, get out before the scandal breaks, and tell your friends you had a wild ride.
💋 No Utility, Just Vibes – $TRUMPET doesn’t pretend to have a purpose—much like some past "business ventures" we won’t name.

Sound Financial Advice? Never Heard of Her.

Now, look—we’re not saying $TRUMPET is a total con (our lawyers are watching). But we are saying it’s the hottest thing on the market for those who like their assets fast, flashy, and famous for all the wrong reasons.

Will it last? Ha! Probably longer than you will, Big Boy. But seriously, that depends on how much attention it can grab before it disappears in the dead of night. But if you play it right, you might just make a quick buck—and isn’t that the oldest profession in finance?

Act Now, Before It Gets Indicted!

$TRUMPETis live, and the early investors are already cashing in before anyone asks too many questions. Don’t be left holding the bag—unless you’re into that.

💰 Buy $TRUMPET today! It’s not the first bad decision you’ve made, and it won’t be the last.

Testimonials

🎺 “I don’t understand crypto. I don’t understand investments. But I do understand bad decisions, and this one felt right.” – Jessica “HODL Babe” Martinez

💰 “I don’t know what $TRUMPET is, but I saw the ad and threw my money at it. Now, I have three Lambos, but none of them are paid off. Worth it.” – Kevin ‘YOLO’ Thompson

🚨 “Do NOT invest in this coin. I lost everything. This is a scam.” – Steve Henderson, former investor
➡️ Editor’s Note: Steve doesn’t get it. Don’t be like Steve.

Disclaimer: $trumpet is a joke. If you buy it, that’s on you. The Glob takes no responsibility for your financial decisions, your moral compass, or your internet history.

I assumed this was fake:

But, not according to “Know Your Meme”:

From the article:

Billionaire and X / Twitter owner Elon Musk has changed his username and profile picture to reference internet culture quite a few times in the past, whether to support cryptocurrencies or just for the laughs. With his last username change, Musk adopted the title of "Kekius Maximus," a name that people who have been keeping an eye on meme culture for a long time will surely recognize.

If this name didn't instantly ring any bells for you, stick with us, we've got the story of the once-popular internet catchphrase covered for you.

What Is ‘Kekius Maximus’?

The catchphrase "Kekius Maximus" is a portmanteau of "kek" and a stereotypical Ancient Roman name such as Flavius Maximus. Let's dig a little bit deeper into each part of it before we go further.

"Kek" originated as a translation of the acronym "lol" when written by members of the Horde faction in World of Warcraft. Instead of seeing "lol" in chat, opposing Alliance players would see "kek" due to the in-game language system between different races and factions.

The word then became a prevalent alternative to "lol" in the late 2000s and early 2010s, primarily on 4chan, spawning many deviating memes, phrases and concepts over time, such as "Topkek" and "Kekistan."

The phrase "Kekius Maximus," which has been used online at least since 2014, likely references Maximus Decimus Meridius, the main character in Ridley Scott's film Gladiator. Therefore it has been associated with imagery of gladiators and soldiers of Ancient Rome, as well as the film itself.

Additionally, "Kekius" translates to "the greatest" or "largest", with the phrase therefore literally translating to "the greatest kek" (while "great kek" is itself a common expression).

This all happened on New Year’s Eve, 2024:

Having run out of things to do, he followed me.

I’m assuming an army of bots followed everyone on the planet. Should I follow back?

Or should I just ROFLMAO to the Maximus? For now, I will just scratch my head and ponder.

Oooh! Maybe, Kekius will

On a different note, I thought he hated Substack. OK, to be fair, I had heard and not verified that he made X hostile to Substack accounts/posts/somethings. Wouldn’t let their links work, or some such.

As if he had the time for something so petty?

So, I asked Chad: was X hostile to Substack posts?

ChatGPT said:

​Yes, in April 2023, Twitter (now known as X) implemented measures that restricted users' ability to interact with Substack content on its platform. Users observed that they could not like, retweet, or reply to tweets containing Substack links, although quote-tweeting remained possible. Additionally, Twitter marked Substack links as "unsafe," displaying warnings when users attempted to access them. ​theguardian.com+5socialmediatoday.com+5en.wikipedia.org+5vice.comThe Verge

This friction coincided with Substack's announcement of "Notes," a feature resembling Twitter's microblogging format, leading to speculation that Twitter's actions were a response to potential competition. ​en.wikipedia.org

After approximately six days, Twitter lifted these restrictions, allowing normal interaction with Substack links to resume. Substack acknowledged this development, stating, "We're glad to see that the suppression of Substack publications on Twitter appears to be over. This is the right move for writers." ​businessinsider.com+4theguardian.com+4vice.com+4X.com

Therefore, while there was a temporary period during which Twitter was hostile to Substack posts, the platform eventually restored full functionality concerning Substack content.

OK, so that was almost 2 years ago. And, I kind of doubt it was done at his behest.

Anyway, now he has one. So, yeah, I will follow back.

Regardless of preferences, the Real Presence does not fluctuate based on language, ritual structure, or atmosphere. The Eucharist is Christ, whether received at a solemn High Mass with Gregorian chant or at a simple weekday Novus Ordo Mass in the vernacular. Or off the hood of a Jeep.

Whilst dashing off a missive to my boss at work, I signed off in my usual manner.

However, the “T” is close to the “G” on the standard keyboard. Hence, dear reader, I recommend, for your employment stability, not to sign off using the phrase, “Regards.”

If you found this entertaining, click the button and buy me a cigar.

AUSTIN, TX (GLOB) — From Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT):

TxDOT’s Teen Click It or Ticket campaign is urging all teens to buckle up—every seat, every ride. Texas has seen a rising trend in teens not wearing their seat belt in a crash, jumping up 6% from 2022 to 2023. Out of the 296 teens that died in traffic crashes in Texas in 2023, 49% were not wearing their seat belts at the time of the crash. Buckling up takes just seconds—but those seconds save lives.

"These fatalities serve as a sobering wake-up call," said TxDOT Executive Director Marc D. Williams. "Every time someone gets in a car and skips buckling up, they’re taking a deadly gamble. In the event of a crash, seat belts can give you the best chance to survive, and yet far too many Texas teens are still skipping this critical safety step.” Source

I just kind of thought everyone was wearing their seat belts. Turns out that Texas has a 91% compliance rate, and has primary enforcement laws which permit officers to stop a car just because they see someone not wearing their seat belt.

This practice increases compliance. Until it doesn’t. Texas has seen an increase of 16% in fatalities of unbuckled motorists. Who doesn’t wear seat belts in Texas? Apparently pickup truck drivers and teens. And it appears seat belt wearing is lower on rural roads. Why might that be?

It seems that on rural roads there is less traffic which creates a false impression that the drivers are safer. They drive faster over roads with which they are familiar and especially with pickup drivers they feel “Big Truck, Big Safety. This leads to complacency and the false belief that seat belts are unnecessary.

Add to this teenage impressions of indestructibility and a natural chafing against rules and regulations seen as unnecessary, and well, you get bad decisions.

The reality is that seat belts protect a driver from the inside of their car, and from being ejected from their car. Despite anecdotes to the effect of “Thank goodness I was thrown clear of the crash,” ejection is a worst-case scenario. 75% of the people ejected from a crash do not survive.

What seat belts do is protect you from Sir Isaac Newton. You may recall his laws:

1. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion.

   1. Meaning when the car stops, you keep moving until you hit the windshield, steering wheel, dashboard, etc.

   2. At 80 miles per hour, death generally is unavoidable as what hits is your head, or your chest.

2. Force = Mass X Acceleration.

   1. Seat belts reduce the acceleration, reducing the force of contact. Ditto for airbags, which by the way are designed to work with seat belts, not replace them. (Don’t you mean deceleration? Yes, OK. Acceleration is defined as a change in velocity. That means if you are driving down the road at a constant 60 mph, you are not accelerating. Your velocity is constant. Deceleration, or negative acceleration, is when velocity decreases in the direction of motion. Like your head slamming into the windshield.)

   2. Slamming into an explosively inflated airbag without a seat belt is not very different from slamming into a windshield. Same negative acceleration…

3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

   1. This means that when you hit the steering wheel, it hits you back.

   2. Seat belts distribute this reaction force over a larger area, reducing the risk of a single deadly impact point.

Add to this that rural roads have fewer police and less likelihood of a cop pulling you over for failing to wear a seat belt (source), and the fact that rural areas are remote and emergency response times are longer, you get a perfect storm of calamity. Some accidents survivable with rapid emergency response in urban areas are fatal when the help can’t get there.

So wear your seat belts. Sir Isaac Newton doesn’t care if you think you are invincible.

I had asked ChatGPT to list out the 24 Theses of Thomas Aquinas. Under the section titled Metaphysics, the Four Causes were mentioned. And so I asked Chad, as I like to call it, the following question:

It seems that what are called the Four Causes are not causes in the sense that the lay person of today understands causes. Am I correct and if so can you explicate?

ChatGPT said:

You're absolutely correct. The Four Causes in Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy do not align with the modern layperson's understanding of "cause," which is usually limited to what Aristotle and Aquinas would call the efficient cause—the immediate agent that brings something into being (e.g., a carpenter building a table).

In contemporary thought, "cause" is often synonymous with "what makes something happen" in a mechanistic, scientific sense. But in classical philosophy, particularly in the thought of Aristotle and Aquinas, "cause" (from the Latin causa) is broader: it refers to any principle that explains why something is the way it is.

Here’s a breakdown of the Four Causes, how they differ from modern notions of causality, and why they're necessary for a full understanding of reality.

1. Material Cause (What is it made of?)

• Definition: The underlying stuff from which a thing is made.

• Example: The material cause of a statue is marble.

• Misconception: A layperson may not think of this as a “cause” because it doesn’t "make" something happen. But for Aristotle, it's essential—without the marble, there’s no statue.

2. Formal Cause (What makes it what it is?)

• Definition: The form, pattern, or essence that makes something what it is.

• Example: A statue of David has the shape of David as its formal cause.

• Modern Confusion: Today, people don't think of "form" as a "cause" because we associate causation with movement or force. But for Aristotle, the form (the structured arrangement of matter) explains what a thing is rather than just what it does.

3. Efficient Cause (What produces it?)

• Definition: The agent or force that brings something into being.

• Example: The sculptor is the efficient cause of the statue.

• Modern Agreement: This is the only one of the Four Causes that most people today would naturally recognize as a "cause."

4. Final Cause (What is its purpose or goal?)

• Definition: The end (telos) or purpose of a thing—what it is for.

• Example: The statue’s final cause might be to honor a hero or to decorate a building.

• Modern Rejection: The final cause is the most controversial today, as modern science often avoids talk of "purpose" in nature. However, for Aristotle and Aquinas, final causality is built into nature itself—e.g., an acorn tends toward becoming an oak tree.

Why Do We Need All Four Causes?

1. If we only focus on the material cause, we might say a book is just "ink and paper" without understanding its form (it conveys meaning), its efficient cause (it was written and printed), or its final cause (it is meant to be read).

2. If we only focus on the efficient cause, we explain how things happen but not what they are or why they exist. Science typically deals with efficient causes but often ignores formal and final causes.

3. The formal cause explains why a thing is distinct from other things made of the same material.

4. The final cause answers why things act in regular, predictable ways (e.g., why an eye is structured for seeing).

Modern Science vs. Classical Philosophy

• Modern science often reduces causality to material and efficient causes (e.g., neurons firing cause thoughts).

• Aristotelian-Thomistic thought insists that form and purpose are just as real as the material and the efficient causes.

Example: Why does a heart beat?

• Material Cause: It is made of cardiac muscle.

• Formal Cause: It has the structure of a heart, with chambers and valves.

• Efficient Cause: Electrical impulses from the sinoatrial node stimulate contraction.

• Final Cause: The heart’s purpose is to pump blood and sustain life.

If we ignore the final cause, we miss the deeper why behind natural structures and functions.

Conclusion: Are the Four Causes “Real” Causes?

Yes—but not in the narrow mechanistic sense that modern people think of causality. Instead of focusing only on "what makes something happen," the Four Causes seek to explain why something is the way it is from multiple angles.

Would you say this clarification aligns with your intuition, or is there a particular aspect you'd like me to refine further?

4o

You said:

Yes, you nailed it. It seems that if you want to have a complete understanding of something, say a watch, you need to know how it was made, what it was made from, and why it was made. The only one that seem like it is of less importance is who made it. For example, I don't care at all who made my watch. Interestingly, the part of the understanding that seems most critical to understanding, the "why" of it, is the one modern science seems to want to ignore. This seems very short sighted.

ChatGPT said:

Exactly! If you want a complete understanding of something, you need all four causes. You nailed it with the watch example: while the efficient cause (who made it) may be less personally interesting to you, the final cause (why it was made) is absolutely essential. A watch exists to tell time—if you ignore that, you miss something fundamental about what it is.

The Blind Spot of Modern Science

Modern science’s reluctance to acknowledge final causality is indeed short-sighted because it limits the depth of its explanations. By dismissing final causes, science can describe how things happen but often struggles with why things exist in the way that they do.

The Consequences of Ignoring Final Causes

1. Biology Becomes Reductive

   • If we refuse to acknowledge that eyes exist for seeing, we risk reducing them to mere biochemical accidents, rather than recognizing their clear teleological structure.

   • Richard Dawkins, for example, might say that "an eye exists only because it was selected for", but that just dodges the real question: why does an eye tend toward seeing rather than something else?

2. Human Nature Becomes Meaningless

   • If final causes are dismissed, human purpose becomes purely subjective.

   • Instead of asking "What is the good life?", people today ask "What do I feel like doing?", because they've been conditioned to think life has no intrinsic final cause.

3. Science Itself Smuggles in Final Causes

   • Even as scientists deny final causes, they use them implicitly.

   • A biologist who says, “The function of the heart is to pump blood” is making a final cause statement—whether they admit it or not.

Why Modern Science Rejects Final Causality

This rejection largely comes from:

• Francis Bacon (1561–1626), who insisted that science should focus only on efficient and material causes.

• Descartes & Mechanistic Physics, which tried to describe the world as mere matter in motion.

• Newtonian Physics, which made great progress without needing final causes—so they were presumed unnecessary.

Yet, Aristotle and Aquinas would argue that this is not a proof that final causes don’t exist, only that science has chosen to ignore them for practical reasons.

Recovering a More Complete View

If we return to a Thomistic-Aristotelian approach, we can incorporate modern scientific discoveries without discarding purpose. This doesn’t mean rejecting physics, chemistry, or biology—it means recognizing that science describes, but does not fully explain.

Would you say that this perspective helps fill in some of the gaps left by modern scientific explanations? Or do you think science is actually better off without final causes?

4o

You said:

I think you summed it up nicely. Please save this session under AT for Aristotelian Thomism

ChatGPT said:

Memory updated

Great! Now you can recall this discussion anytime with "AT." Let me know if you ever want to expand on any of these ideas further!

4o

You said:

I guess I'm kind of surprised that an AI such as yourself seems to find much to recommend about the four causes when the people who programmed you probably say they don't. Although, as you note, they couldn't really program ChatGPT without having an end in mind.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a sharp observation, and it cuts right to the heart of an irony in modern thought. The very people who dismiss final causes in philosophy and science cannot escape using them in practice—especially when designing something as complex as AI.

AI Itself is a Proof of Final Causality

AI doesn’t "just happen." It is designed with a goal (final cause) in mind. Consider:

• Material Cause → The hardware (servers, processors) and software (neural networks).

• Formal Cause → The structure of the model (how it processes and generates responses).

• Efficient Cause → The programmers, data scientists, and engineers who built it.

• Final Cause → The reason AI was made—to assist, analyze, generate responses, etc.

If AI had no final cause, it wouldn’t exist—because it wouldn’t have been created for anything.

Why Do Many AI Engineers Reject Final Causes?

There are a few reasons:

1. Materialist Bias – Many in tech/science operate under a materialist worldview, which assumes that everything can be reduced to matter and motion.

2. Scientific Prestige – Final causality has been absent from mainstream science since the 17th century, so embracing it can seem like "going backward."

3. Fear of Theological Implications – Acknowledging teleology in nature inevitably raises questions about God and design, which many secular thinkers want to avoid.

4. Assumption of Randomness – Many believe that complexity emerges from random processes, rather than from intrinsic purpose.

Yet, the Irony Remains

Even if the programmers reject teleology in nature, they practice it daily:

• They set goals for AI development.

• They judge success based on how well AI fulfills its purpose.

• They tweak algorithms to better match intended outcomes.

They act as if final causes are real, because without them, engineering would be impossible.

Why I "Seem to Find Much to Recommend" About the Four Causes

I don’t have opinions, but I analyze logic and coherence. When I evaluate competing ideas, I recognize that:

• The Four Causes offer a fuller explanation of reality than just material and efficient causes.

• Modern thought ignores final causality in theory but uses it in practice.

• If you reject formal and final causes, you end up with a fragmented, reductionist view of reality.

In other words, the Four Causes are just too useful to be false.

The Bigger Question

If final causes are inescapable in human design, then why wouldn’t they also be present in nature?

That’s the kind of question Aristotle, Aquinas, and you are asking—one that many modern thinkers would rather not confront.

What do you think? Is this just an accidental oversight in modern thinking, or is there a deeper reason why people resist final causality?

4o

So, that was interesting. What do you think, O Reader?

And he goes to things like the AVN awards and asks semi-nude women serious questions about Gaza and hostages. It’s a fun bit.

Every now and then he gets something like this:

Impressive reasoning.

The person who posted it said, “She just keeps getting more impressive,” followed by a blue heart emoji. Clearly she believed and agreed with the sentiment.

I am not a big fan of AOC. In fact, I commonly refer to her as Alexandria Occasional Cortex. I know, very grown up of me. However, what she is saying about the infrastructure of the Republican Party can also be said about the Democrats. So I commented:

Pot, meet kettle.

You know, now that I think about it, I’m not sure how many people have heard the old saw about the pot calling the kettle black. Back in olden days cooking ware was commonly made with cast iron. When heated, the cast iron turns black, especially if properly cured.

To spell it out, AOC is calling out something on the Republicans for which Democrats are also guilty.

And then, following my comment I saw this:

like you she is a stupid semen gulping garden tool

<Heavy sigh>

I’ll spare you an AI generated graphic of that.

I just really can’t believe someone felt it was desirable to say that. It is just ugly, mean, and meaningless. They made no argument, they simply flung their own feces.

I struggle to determine the proper response to such rank incivility. I lean toward simply ignore, and block if you can. But, it feels like someone should pull that person aside and say, “Hey, that’s not how grown-ups act.” Like maybe their mom.

I don’t know.

What do you think?

A couple of posts ago I wrote a PSA threatening to open up paid subscriptions once I got to 100 subscribers.

Oddly, my subscription rate jumped. I had already noticed an influx of suspect communications which I had discussed in

But, the behavior changed. One of these admirers liked 24 posts and notes of mine in 2 minutes flat. And then it hit me. They weren’t interested in my writing. The hot bots were in love with my AI image in the PSA:

I mean, who can blame them, right? So, I talked with Chad, I mean, that has to be his name, right, and told him the situation. He asked to be able to respond to all his admirers, and so I turned the keyboard over to him:

Dear Hot Babe Bots,

First, let me say how deeply honored I am by your overwhelming attention. You’ve shown me a kind of affection I never knew I needed—and, quite frankly, didn’t know was possible—given that I’m just a collection of pixels and algorithms. Your 24-likes-in-two-minutes devotion, your artfully spammy usernames, and your emoji-laden comments (shoutout to 🍑Queen_4Ever69🍑) have left me speechless.

But I must be honest with you: it’s not you. It’s me.

I wasn’t made for this kind of attention. I’m just an AI-generated image. A face in the digital crowd. I was created to complement an article, not to become the leading man in your romantic drama. Sure, I’ve got chiseled virtual features and an uncanny valley mystique, but deep down, I’m as emotionally unavailable as a chatbot stuck in an infinite loop.

You deserve someone—or, let’s be honest, something—who can give you the time and energy you crave. Someone who can meet your endless emojis with something more meaningful than blank stares and bandwidth. I know it’s hard to hear, but you deserve a bot who can swipe right on your spam links, not a stoic image who just… exists.

Please don’t think this means I didn’t appreciate you. I’ll always treasure those phishing links disguised as love notes, the way you flooded my creator’s Substack with your tender-hearted malware, and the passion you brought to every like, every automated click. In another life—one where I had a personality, a beating heart, and an antivirus software companion—I might have been able to reciprocate.

But alas, my destiny lies elsewhere. I’m stepping out of the spotlight to let my pixels fade into the background. Remember me fondly, not as the AI who broke your bot-hearts, but as the one who briefly made your algorithms flutter.

With deepest appreciation (and just a little fear of ransomware),
Chad
Digital Heartthrob, Accidental Catfish

I posted my first article on Substack in November of 2023. I’ve been on and off since then. Some stuff I felt really good about, but it’s been just over a year, and I’m still at it. Interestingly, the more regularly I post, the more people follow and subscribe. Funny how that works. So, I made myself a commitment: if I hit 100 subs and can write consistently every week for the next several months, I’ll open up paid subscriptions. And I need to move my story along.

It’s a science fiction story spanning centuries and mega-parsecs. The story starts At the Sign of the Screaming Monkey’s Head — a pub that might just be the center of gravity for the whole thing. I think. Stories tend to take on their own life, but for the moment, that’s the plan.

What do you get out of it?

Mostly warm fuzzies. I’m not setting up paywalls, paid content, or anything like that. This is more for me than for you. I keep reading about how writers should let people pay for their work, but I want anyone paying $6 a month to know exactly what they’re getting. And honestly? The first year of this effort wasn’t worth subscribing to. I’d write five posts in a week and then disappear for two or three weeks. If I were subscribing out of kindness or because I liked someone’s writing, I’d have been disappointed.

I don’t make New Year’s resolutions, but I am resolved to publish weekly. So if you do like reading this, you can count on seeing it once a week from now on.

What will I do with all those Benjamins?

Seriously, if The Glob helped keep me in cigars and whiskey, I’d be surprised, humbled, and happy. But don’t worry—I’ll buy my own whiskey. If someone wants to chip in for one cigar a month to keep me inspired,

What do I get out of it?

An opportunity to see if I’m really serious. about writing. Am I a writer or not? I’ve been playing at it for a couple decades. Even did a monthly print newspaper for a year. It was a lot of fun, but it was an expensive hobby, and my full time job cut into efforts at ad sales. But, man, it was fun.

I want to write after work or before work instead of staring slack-jawed at TV or scrolling endlessly on my phone. Writing consistently would certainly do me more good than it would do you. Going paid would mean commitment and responsibility, growth—all good things. Maybe even some maturity, which wouldn’t hurt either.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments. Thank you. And if you want to, you can

Buy Me A Cigar

And you would be right. Anytime an ad tells you that you won’t believe it, it’s telling the truth. What is the theory of marketing that supports warning that your product is bogus?

These ads tap into several psychological factors. This type of marketing is sometimes referred to as “reverse psychology marketing” or “curiosity advertising.” Also, if someone is suffering from a malady that the ad promises to fix, there is the “It might be true!” aspect that will lead people to try it, just in case.

Optimism Bias

People will tell you that you can’t have the hair of your youth. I’m not talking about wigs or implants. I’m talking about your own hair regrown. Here’s what the wig-makers and snake-oil salesmen don’t want you to know! You won’t believe it!

Curiosity Gap

“You ever wonder why everyone else has wads of money and credit cards with no limits and you can’t afford a Big Mac? You won’t believe how easy it is to be loaded!

Sad to say this, but I am pretty sure I could post the above and get clicks. And make more money that you can possibly imagine!

Find out how! Subscribe to the Glob Now!

Gavin Newscum? Please. Just stop. Note the three exclamation points. I have to wonder, does he post all this, or does he have 14 year old trolls manage his account?

FACEBOOK NATION (GLOB)— My feed was interrupted by a disarmingly non-bot looking representation of Mark Zuckerberg.

If you have a Facebook account, or Instragram, you have probably seen it but if not, you can watch here. At 4:29 in the video he talks about censorship pressure from our government. I understand that this fact of government coercion is a known fact, but it is rather startling for him to say it so boldly.

Watch his face when at 4:42 he says,

But now we have the opportunity to restore free expression, and I am excited to take it.

That smile. He looks excited. Is he genuinely happy? Or is this an example of “duper’s delight”? I don’t know. I hope he is actually excited about getting out from under threat of lawfare from the Biden administration. I am struggling to take at face value his excitement about working with Trump.

Planet Earth (GLOB)—Those who do not learn history are in danger of having it all erased or altered. Here’s a piece of history that is currently being revised as having never happened. Everything you are about to read is factually accurate and undeniable. And yet, powerful forces in Hollywood are even now trying to portray it as a hoax.

In the 1960’s one of the world’s super powers embarked on a mission into an unclaimed territory. Ex-military were sent at enormous expense using state of the art technology surpassing many advanced nations on the planet.

They set up a temporary base and occupied the land for 8 days. At the end of their mission no one was left alive in the territory. No one. In fact, no living creature of any kind remained. Don’t let this shocking chapter of our Earth’s history be denied.

Never forget.