A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Clinton Supporters Should Vote For McCain In November

Proof's in the pudding.

Whomever Did HE Mean?

Who will John Edwards endorse?  What is the fate of Edwards' 19 pledged delegates?  Did John Edwards vote that MAN?  Uh yup.  I think he did.

Pepper

Do you find it's proper placement to be the left or the right?

Why Does Dennis Rehberg Hate His Mother?

Okay, so we're all very tired of our do-little Congress.  Our friendly Republicans would have us believe that  it's all the Democrat's fault; after all, aren't they in charge of Congress now?  The Righties here in state even want you to believe that the current state of the economy is all the Democratic Congress' fault.  (Here's a joke for you:  Texas oil-man President sends his Vice President to meet with his BFsF, the Suads to attempt a resolution to high oil prices.  The VP comes back, winks and claims his meetings were beneficial.  And oil goes up another $30/barrel.  ~wink~  Oh wait!  That's not a joke.  That's actually what happened.)  But this post isn't about the colossal failings of the Republicans in their leadership role (dare you to say that and keep a straight face).  No, it's about their hatred for the country, beginning with their own mothers.

I think we have a little insight into why this Congress is bogged down.  It's probably because it's over-populated with tantrumming Republican children.  Case in point:

Every year, Congress passes another resolution affirming their support for our National Mother's Day.  Now, I love my Mother, and I hope she knows that even if I usually am a slouch about the whole arbitrary Mother's Day thing.  But seriously, I'm not alone in thinking that such ridiculous Congressional rituals and resolutions are a huge waste of taxpayer's time and Representative's effort.  Fine, hold the vote and get it over with.  On Wednesday, the House did.  The resolution H.R.  1113  "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day"  passed the House by a unanimous vote, 412 to 0.  No problem and let's get on with the taxpayer's business.  But wait ...

The only thing more godawful wasteful than meaningless Resolutions are Resolutions voted twice, that serve no one but Congress itself.  The only thing that could be worse than that are voice-count Resolutions manipulated by one party for *no* reason other than to waste effort and time.  And which party did that?  You guessed it.  The party of hating mom, apple pie and condescending to Nascar did that; the Republicans.

Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt called for a recount  voice vote, and 177 Republicans  said "Nay", they are not  "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day".  And who should we find here?

Montana

Nay       MT-0 Rehburg, Dennis (R)

I guess Dennis doesn't like dear ole Mom or something.  If you think I'm going too far, just take the word of the House Minority Leader:

House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: "Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother's Day."

This couldn't be more plain; Dennis Rehberg is on record as NOT supporting Mother's Day.  At best, this can be seen as a huge flip-flop from the stupid among the House minority.  At worst, it is a blatant attempt to derail the honest efforts of the US Congress.  The next local righty who blames the Democrats for accomplishing nothing will get laughed at.  The next local righty who tells me that Dennis Rehberg isn't the lowest form of loathsome party suck-up will get pointed to this vote.  He is Montana's sole Representative to the House, and he just said that Montana doesn't support Mother's Day.  The worst part is that he said it just to disrupt the people's business for no good reason at all.

I don't mind that Dennis Rehberg hates his mother; I just wish he didn't hate his country enough to screw with its governance.

The Rules

Being 4 months shy of having done this gig for 5 years, I guess it's time to post a few.  This is based very loosely on Craig's "Da Rules", basically because he's 'da man', and I think he's spot on in expectation and enforcement.

1)  My dime, my rules.  Unlike blogspot users and many others who use free services, I pay for my website, and I've done so from day one.  That means it's mine.  Look no further than this rule before leveling complaint about your role on my property.  I own this space.   I own copyright on everything here, including your comments.  If you don't want me to own it, don't write it.  If you simply *must* express yourself, then allow me to quote from MetaFilter, "GYOBFW".

2)  Pursuant to rule 1, I don't owe you a platform.  I ain't the government, I don't represent you, you don't pay me, and any claims about your free-speech here or elsewhere will be met with the appropriate amount of derision.  If I delete your comment, alter your comment or ban you by word or IP ... tough noogies.  The founding fathers certainly never intended for you to have "rights" over my property.  And indeed, you don't.  So don't whine about it.

3)  I am not a 'citizen journalist'.  Don't expect me to be one.  I don't get paid for this, and I have little use for your opinion of my 'credibility'.  I am a writer.  Good, bad, fair to middlin', writing is what I do.  It is not reporting.  If I you want to see  real citizen journalism, I have a few suggestions.  Don't expect it here.  You won't be disappointed and then you won't annoy me.

4)  'Foul' language is not only allowed here, but sometimes encouraged.  If you have a problem with that, you'd best not hang 'round these parts.  I did not have a highbrow upbringing, and I've spent some too much time around military folk.  Try not to think of it as invective; consider it ...  punctuation.

5)  Insult is allowed here, within limits.  Few things are more mewling and disgusting than those who think that insult cheapens an argument.  Really, it doesn't.  There are many forms of insult, both genteel and vulgar.  An argument stands based on reason and logic, not the words that add flavor (remember rules number 3 and 4).    Anyone who wants to call me an "asshole" is welcome to do that ... if you have an argument to make.   If not, remember: my dime, my rules.

6)  Do not insult my friends if they're not insulting you.  This should be simple.  If it isn't, I will take action.  Or not.  The choice is mine.  Remember: my dime, my rules.

7)  I've learned a few things in the past years.  I'm over some forms of amusement.  One of them is cheap pop psychology applied to me from those who know nothing of me or my life.  On this website, my job, my life, my existence beyond blogging is strictly out of bounds.  You don't know me.  Don't pretend you do (unless, of course, you do.  But then I'll need you to prove it.)

8)  Racism and sexism will not be tolerated.  Gay bashing will not be tolerated.  Any adult would know that these are 'no-nos'.  Don't do them.

9)  My website is not the pinnacle of well-read.  I kinda like it that way.  Adding comments to older posts is futile.  The only person who will read them is me.  Don't waste your time.  And if you do:  my dime, my rules.

10)  Unlike some, I don't print e-mails.  I think that's kinda icky.  But if you send me one, it's my property.   Piss me off unduly and I will print it with appropriate alteration and/or commentary.  Don't like that?  Too bad.   You've been warned.

11)  As I've indicated, my website is not the most popular on the block.  I like it that way.  So trolling me only proves you to be a moron.  Don't do that.  Trolling me only wastes your time.

12)  If you don't like any of these rules, tough shit.  This is an adult website for adults, and it is not a "play nice" zone.  But all things lead back to rule number 1:  my dime, my rules. 

The Stupid Is Strong With This One

It seems that media darling Andrew Hammond is having a tantrum.  His reason for existing is falling apart before his very eyes; his fifteen minutes was only five, because the meany Democrats don't give a flying frack about Operation Chaos.  His beloved weapon for terrorizing Democrats, Hillary Clinton, has been ... defused.  Those sneaky Democrats used an arcane form of language (some call it ... mathematics) and decided to leave poor Andrew helpless by taking away his toy.  When the vote comes to Montana, Professor Chaos will be as frustrated and futile as he has ... well ... so far already.

So now Andrew is defending the honor of Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan by claiming that they've been disenfranchised.  Actually, they haven't.  They got to vote, no problem.  Their delegates to the Democratic Convention, on the other hand, won't be seated.  I've tasked Andy with seeing the difference, but I've little hope that he will; he's just not that sharp.  But I have to admire the way he soldiers on against the adversity of his own stupidity.  Let's look for the points of bravery, that we think the best of Andrew Hammond:

1)  The fate of the Florida and Michigan delegates hasn't been decided yet.  Only a few things are known.  Michigan and Florida willfully and knowingly broke party rules, rules that Andy's Hillbomb signed off on.  It's more than just a touch hypocritical for her to argue that they be seated now.  We can forgive Andrew of any hypocrisy; he just isn't bright enough to understand that rules often matter (I fear for his kids, even the teenage daughter he called "babe").  The rules committee has already stated that Michigan's delegates will not be seated per vote because Barack Obama wasn't even on the ballot.  He withdrew his name, following those 'rule thingies' that Andy has such a difficult time with.  And here's the kicker:  even with the pledged delegates from MI and FL, Hillary still stands a dismally small chance of taking the nomination.  She won't catch Obama in pledged delegates or in the popular vote.  Let me restate that.  She can't catch Obama in pledged delegates or the popular vote.

2)  This primary will likely be settled by the time Montana votes.  Yes, Clinton will win West Virginia and Kentucky by playing on racial fears.  After all, her campaign's current battle cry is that white folks won't vote for Obama (the black guy.)   Let's just disregard the fact that the Clinton camp is rather overtly calling white people racists, and focus on the fact that white people have and are voting for Obama.  That's why he has such a huge lead and will win the nomination.  Between sooperdooper delegate pickups, and Oregon's vote,  Obama will have this thing locked up before Professor Chaos can unleash his fury in Montana.

3)  It's nice and admirable that Andrew cares for the poor Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan.  Okay, I can't even write that with a straight face.   Andy doesn't give a shit about anything but his own fame as Professor Chaos.   Andrew is the worst (read:  Stupid) form of concern troll.  If he actually gave a salient shit about voter's rights beyond party, he would have been all over the Montana Republicants for their caucus idea, which really did disenfranchise Montana Republican voters as regards their choice for Presidential candidate,  Florida and Michigan got to vote.  Montana, not so much ... okay, not at all.  That's what 'disenfranchise' really means, Andrew.  Hopefully, you've learned that now.  But I highly doubt that you have that capacity.

Nope, Hillary has lost this thing, fair and square.  The only reason Andrew cares is that the news rags won't be calling him any more.  Boo Hoo for Andrew Hammond.

But since I'm committed to helping the rationally handicapped, I'd rather light a candle than let Andy bang his head against a door ... continuously.  Here's a handy tool that folk can use to create wildly fanciful scenarios whereby Hillary Clinton might actually win the nomination.  This should keep Andrew drooling and happy for hours, if he can figure out how to work the thing (or click a link, which most of my Dextra-oriented readers appear incapable of doing.)

And while we're on the topic of the deeply stupid, I just have to applaud Astroturf Cody at the website BullShit Cairn for attempting to rebrand Democrats as the partay of Corruption.  Of course, It's kinda goofy that he's referring to a "culture" of corruption, and attempting to hang it all on one or two individuals.  We can forgive Astroturf Cody for not understanding the meanings of words; he's undertaken a heroic task.  After all, not only is he attempting to smear a working guy who is working hard for the state as "corrupt", but he's demanding that his own ignorance be assuaged.  Honest to God, he's just told Montana that our Governor owes him something he's only asked for on a blog, and thinks we're stupid enough to believe that the Governor is "hiding" something by ignoring the astroturf gnat who remains proudly HIDDEN.  Andrew's form of stupid is rather pitiable.  But Astroturf Cody?  That is some seriously high quality stupid there, and he just asked Montana to dumb down to his level.

Just Because It's Time

Needs Be Repeated

In light of the current political race, this needs be repeated:

What the hell is wrong with Progressives?

How We Got To Where We Are

It is what is it is:

via, KIT.  (And Lady, I share the best wishes of BS Cairn and all your many friends.  Congratulations.  I pray for you the deepest happiness.)

The Empire Strikes Barack

I doubt that Clinton supporters will find this terrible amusin' like, but I laughed good and hardy.  And yeah, Bill Richardson would shoot first ...

'Just In Time For Collapse'

There are a couple of the Montana Dextra brethren who are jumping on the bandwagon that we can save the planet by offering already wealthy corporations the ability to pillage drill more oil in the US.  (Okay, Hammond ain't my brethren and he'll get no link from me.)    I actually like Geeguy's thinking ... to a point.  Yes, opening up American reserves of oil would be a quick fix, and people  (certainly NOT BITTER) will support such a move to get a respite from high gas prices.  Only. One. Problem.  Geeguy, and I can only assume Samuelson, are promoting a quick panacea that has no assurance of working.

By relying on the idea that Americans will weakly choose to do whatever feels good (kind of insulting to some of us) the theory is that if we open up American reserves to drilling, the public will be assuaged by lower prices at the pump.  That may be the case, for a short while.  However, it also may not be.  The oil industry hasn't blamed the high price on lack of supply, but on limited processing.  'We don't have enough refining', so they wail.  Simply put, we don't lack for reserves of oil, but for those of gasoline.  That's why the Clinton/McCain (I wonder who wears the pantsuit in that union) plan to give us a break in gas tax may seem spiffy, but won't work.  It's really a  matter of reserves, and we don't have any that we need, not money, not political capital and not gasoline.  Thank Chimpy mcWorthless for most of the aforementioned.

I know more than just a little about complexity dynamics, complex systems and chaos theory.    So I bear a high degree of confidence in writing that anyone who proposes that the only solution to global warming, mass famine and high gas prices is to burn more oil is being, at best, disingenuous.  They are promoting the idea of the excluded middle.  We can burn ethanol and starve folks, or we can burn oil and be smack-happy.  Uhhhh, no.  Complex systems don't work quite that simply.  I'd been mulling over an explanation of the point for weeks, and never got around to writing.  But as usually happens (Serendipity!) someone else wrote my thoughts for me.    I give you ... Devilstower:

What happened that evening illustrates how systems that are enormously costly and massive, can still be incredibly fragile and subject to the failure of a single part.  There's a famous antecedent that John Glenn, moments before he was about to become the first American in orbit, realized that he was sitting on a billion dollars worth of low bids. It's good for a smile, until you realize that what was true for Glenn then is even more true for all of us today.
...

Want to know why corporations are able to sit on huge sums of money, but the average worker's pay hasn't increased?  It's because they can get by with fewer of us and still get what they need.  Not more than they need, of course.  Just enough.  Corporations have been proudly "cutting the fat."  Flexibility and robustness are not the goals for a corporate society that rarely glances beyond the end of the current quarter.

I strongly urge reading the whole thing.  But if'n you won't, here's the summery:  Corporate society is focused on paper.  It makes numbers look good, regardless of the wider result.  Because of that, the numbers become more real than the long term results of actions by government or corporate leaders.  Those results are often unexpected and not too pleasant for the bulk of us.  But yet we, as good Amurkins, continue to trust that those numbers lead to solutions, instead of increasingly fragile complexity.  We're kinda foolish that way.

So yeah, we can react, and drill more oil.  And it won't stop profit taking from corporate food growers who avail themselves of opportunity.  It won't stop rising food prices; that horse has fled the barn.  It sure as frack won't do anything for climate (record droughts in those food growing regions we don't care about).  But yeah, it will make our oil executives even richer.  That's a goal I'm sure we can all get behind ... on Grasshopper Planet.

I Think My Reading Comprehension Has Been Unfairly Insulted!

Steve Eschenbacher, Idiot for H.D. 96, has rather unfairly insulted my reading comprehension.  He wrote, rather plainly, that politicians will lie to you.  He is a politician.  He's running for office, and he will lie to you.  That's what he wrote.  I don't think I failed to comprehend anything ... unless, Steve thinks he's not a politician because he hasn't been elected yet (with no dismal chance of ever being).  Of course, reading as thoroughly as possible, one could take his meaning to be that politicians only lie in the promises they make after getting elected.  So, no promise they make while running could be a lie.  After all, they haven't been elected yet; they are not politicians.

So one really has to wonder on what grounds he takes Hillary Clinton to task for lying while running for office?  Is he then admitting that politicians lie while running as well as after being elected?  Why yes!  Yes he is.  And so, he stands corrected.  Politicians, running or sitting, will lie to you.  Steve Eschenbacher is a politician.  Therefore, quite plainly by his own admission, Steve Eschenbacher will and is lying to you.

Perhaps it isn't my reading comprehension that is open to question, but Steve's poor abilities at reasoning.  Hmmm?

And we allow this Idiot to draw a public paycheck ... Why?

Don't Take My Word For It

Over at another place, I defended Barack Obama against claims that he doesn't care about GBLT issues.  I'll be the first to admit that my defense was based in large part on my distrust of Hillary Clinton's stance and record.  I believe that 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' was a stupid compromise, and an affront to basic civil rights.  For my effort, I was castigated as 'not knowing what gay people really think, or what their issues are'.  Fair enough.  I may not.  My only take is that I believe that civil rights extend to all, and so I may have a blind spot concerning the GBLT community.

So I did find it interesting when a dKos diarist, who is a homosexual activist, took Hillary Clinton to task.  Though I highly doubt that I have many (if any) gay readers, I invite you all to read this because it sounds a warning to any who would take Clintonian policies at face value, when the topic is civil rights vs. her ambition.

Hillary's Serious Gay Problem.

Worth 1000 Words

I've been saying this since the great "tax cuts = energy subsidy" of 2001.

Ur Doing It Rong!

Like most folks throwing words into the Great Online, I don't have a lot of faith that political types with aspiration aren't constantly pandering to our desires and fears.  It's often hard to tell whether they are  sincere or lying to you, the voter  (unless of course, they announce that they're going to lie to you.)  But one thing you can be pretty well certain of is that if a politician tells you to your face that they don't like you, they probably aren't lying.  They really don't like you.  Most politicians are smart enough not to tell voters how much they don't like 'em.  Some politicians just aren't so smart.

This is especially true in local and regional contests.  So imagine my surprise when 2 candidates for the Montana House of Representatives hurled insult at the very voters they wish to represent.  Carol Minjares, The Frightened for H.D.  97 in Missoula really doesn't like Missoula.   In a post about 3 young Republicans running in Missoula, she headers it by referring to the city as "the People's Republic", an obvious (and worn out) euphemism accusing Missoula of being communist.  Not to be outdone in racing to the bottom, Steve Eschenbacher, Idiot for H.D. 96, picks up the same insult.

"The People's Republic of Missoula", written without irony (or any sense of how not-funny that 'joke' has gotten) by two folks who need votes from Missoulians to get elected.  They really don't like you, Missoula, not the town, not the people.  They apparently seem to think that they can save you pinkos from yourselves, but they certainly won't do it out of caring or respect for you.  So, when the time comes for you 'commies' to remind these idjits that Missoula and Montana are democratic republics, cast your votes accordingly.  Kindly show these fools the meaning of 'EPIC FAIL'.

Super Snowflakes

I'm done arguing with Clinton supporters at other websites.  I don't enjoy it, and I don't enjoy their embarrassingly pompous rebuttals.  The only response they have left is that I don't 'understaaaand' their deep commitments and beliefs, the things they feel so much more desperately than us Obamabots.  They have the underdog shtick down to a fine art, and I'm just not amused by it anymore.   I clearly understand it; I've been a Bronco fan my entire life.

I watched Craig Morton come off the bench in the 4th quarter and score 21 points in 3 minutes as the Broncos came back to beat the Seahawks.  I've seen the Broncos enter the Superbowl as 13 point favorites and suffer the worst defeat in SB history.  And I watched the Broncos enter the SB as 13+ point underdogs to win against Brett Favre.  I know what's possible in the world, for underdogs and otherwise.  So I understand that Hillary can still win the nomination ... with the help of super-human players.

The mathematics is clear.  Clinton can't win unless one includes imaginary numbers or divides by 0.  It simply won't happen.  She's lost.  So the campaign from here on out has nothing to do with us lowly voters.  It is all about the SuperDooperDelegates.  If Clinton tells you that "it's all about you!" she's lying.  If Obama tells you that "it's all about you", then he's lying.  If Andy Hammond tells you that it's all about gaming the vote, then he's stupid, and an immoral little shit stain on the underwear of bad fart Republicant politics.  It isn't about us anymore.  In the wildest numeric fantasies possible, Hillary Clinton remains a viable candidate.  But those fantasies are the anathema of the reality based community.  She can win, but only if her Craig Morton or John Elway comes off the bench.  She needs the Supers to do her bidding.  She won't win without them, and we all know it.

Blue Texan, at Firedoglake spills an appeal that can't help but mirror:  Dear Superdelegates

OK, OK, you've made your point. We get it. You're super powerful and important. We all see that now. And let me just add, personally, that we're all tremendously impressed and awed by your superness. Promise.

Now.

Will you please listen to our party chairman, Howard Dean, and tell us who the hell you're voting for?

I clearly understand why most of the SDs from Montana are holding silent.  They don't want to upset the delicate constitutions of Clinton voters, or enrage the programming of us Obamabots.  They're playing it safe, and hoping that the decision will never come to them.  I see that as, in some ways, humble.  I respect it.  But for pity's fricking sake, this has gone on long enough.  Ed Tinsley has shown a pair, and so has Doc Melcher.   There really isn't much left to say.  These folk are campaigning for you now, superdooperdelegates.  Are you so enraptured with your own special purpose that you will leave Montanans fighting and angry?  Please, make up your minds.

I'm certain that the SDs are just trying to be ... cautious.  But there are a lot of voters like me who are just getting pissed off.  It's over except for these folks, and everyday they vacillate is one more day that I increase in loathing them.  They want state support?  They want to do the right thing by their constituents?  Then make up your fricking minds and end this goddamned thing.   Blue Texan says:

Democratic superdelegates, unless you are the biggest attention whores/megalomaniacs on the planet, there's no good reason why you can't tell us who you're with now. We've been looking at these candidates for 13 months, we've seen them from every angle imaginable, we know more about them then we knew about John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. And there's nothing Guam or Puerto Rico or South Dakota is going to tell us that we didn't already know.

Show us your cards. Give it up.

Governor Schweitzer and Senator Tester, we are Montanans.  Most of us don't have time for your little power games.  If you want Hillary, go with Hillary.  If you prefer Barack, then fracking say so.  Put an end to this thing ... now ... before we end up with the inevitable President Gelding McCan't.  And Senator Baucus, you do whatever you think will favor you.  Montana expects little else.  But would you please just make a choice so that we don't suffer for your status as a special little snowflake?

(Everything I've just said as an aside, I actually look forward to the campaigns coming to Montana just to woo the SDs.  The state will make money and won't that be grand!  It won't change a damn thing, but it will help our economy ... for a while.)