We can't deny it any longer. Our vast thirst for this liguid gold has dwindled supply and soon we will all pay the price for our short-sightedness.; and I curse the fools who failed to act when they could have.
"People have been enjoying the really good stuff for years, with no
thought to the future," Preiss says. "Now the time has come to take stock of
It's not a pretty picture. I imagine that when the shortage reaches critical level there will be protests, and riots in the streets. It might not be too late for us, however, but we have to speak out now, and reduce our consumption before things turn violent and we invade another country. I propose this slogan:
In the comments to my post The Durbinization Of John Vincent, V pointed out that the proper parliamentary response to a proposal about which questions still exist should be "nay". John Vincent attempted to respond to V in the comments, but Typepad apparently failed him in that effort. So he emailed his response to me, and I offer it here to you:
Folks, "V" is right about abstaining in a legislative (law
making) venue. Abstaining in a quasi-legal hearing, however, is different
enough that I felt it was the appropriate thing to do. For instance, if
there's a 2-1 vote against approving, and my vote is one of the two against,
both the county, and myself as a county official, get sued. Not so in a purely
legislative setting. If a suit is brought in a quasi- legal matter, I'll need
to prove, in court, that I had verifiable, truthful and documentable evidence to
justify my vote. In twenty-five years of voting as an elected official, I've
abstained twice. I agree with "V." Too often it's the easy way out. I don't
think it was in this case. Here's another "out". (Apologies for the teacher
in me). A Montana legislator votes "yes" on second reading (debate stage) and
"no" on third reading (final vote). Perfectly OK, except that it has allowed
legislators the opportunity to answer both ways when asked how they voted on the
bill in question. And watch those lobbyists work the bill in the 48 hours
between second and third reading! John Vincent
This is quite right, and the reason I found it so wrong-headed that Mr. Kauffman attacked John for having avoided doing the very thing that Kauffman claimed he did. A strange situation for sure.
I fervently hope that we will hear more from John Vincent on this website, and I look forward to posting more in support of his run for the Montana House HD70 seat. He did inform me that his website should be up in about 10 days, and that he'll drop me a line when it is. With all the fervent push to support Jon Testor against Conrad Burns, please don't forget to set a few dollars aside for the important state races as well. And just in case you misplaced it:
John Vincent donation address:
Vincent for the House
680 Low Bench Road
Gallatin Gateway, MT 59730
I'm not into blogging right now, which is odd, because I have a ton of things to post about, just not much will to sit here and do it. I could have something interesting later, or early tomorrow, depending on when a certain someone gets back to me with permission.
(If I were Michele Malkin, I would now regale you with links to each and every piece I've ever posted concerning wolves, wolf reintroduction and management in Montana. Thank god, I am not.)
Okay, Wyoming. Now it's your turn to belly up to the table, lay down your cards and show what you got. Are you gonna accept that wolves are a part of your future, or continue with your temper tantrum? Your choice, of course.
(Bad language alert! 'Don't want to read it? Then skip on by.)
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does the tree give a salient shit? Hell no. It will attempt to keep growing, in anyway that it can. Please notice that the tree in center picture is growing from the trunk of the fallen parent plant. There's a certain beauty to that.
I want to write something poignant and meaningful about the disdain that the White House has shown the American people, as most exemplified by Rove's rant. It's kinda pointless anymore. Like John Cole, I'm not outraged about it; rather I'm disgusted beyond belief. I've read all the theories about Rove's dark objectives; I've held my nose while reading those who excuse his divisive tactics, and justify his claims based, not on any truth, but on their own bigoted stupidity. None of it matters, because this isn't an incident, it's a culmination.
I've discussed monster making before, and this is simply one more step in the process. It doesn't do you any good to make a monster if you don't scare your audience with it. That's what Rove was doing, playing to the crowd who actually believe that lefties and liberals (Democrats) really want them to die in terrorist hellfire, and rejoice at the thought of drinking the still warm blood of our service people. "Our", in this context, means that the services belong to the Republicans, the White House, and those who agree with Rovian/Bushian objective. Its a simple message, "support us or be a monster".
Apparently, the message has been damned effective. Just look at all the stupidlydroolingmotherfuckers lining up to say "you're done, lefty; you got nothin'! Rove told you to suck it and now you have to! America, FUCK YEAH!". And, as insane as that attitude is, it's also somewhat correct. We got nothing. Nothing will happen to Karl Rove; he won't apologize, he won't resign. There are truly enough people who ignorantly believe that the American spirit is one of enforced unity, based on crushing any opposition, that Rove can talk shit with impunity at this point. The White House can continue it's headlong rush into policies and actions that will end as an historical monument to incompetent leadership ... and we got nothing.
I could keep writing about this for another hour, but it isn't worth it to me. Just keep this in mind, monster makers are only successful as long as the monster plays the role. When the monster says "I'm done fucking around with this shit", people will notice. 'Til then, the tree has to keep growing, regardless of whether or not anybody is listening.
I was going to post part of this yesterday, but I was observing a moment of silence for a friend.
I offer you a non-hypothetical situation: Observe a county commissioner considering changes to a large subdivision development project in his region. He abstains from voting yea or nay on proposed changes, stating that he has reason to believe that the developer has not been completely honest in other counties, and he needs to verify the veracity of those claims; he needed to find out the truth behind what he had heard. Would you consider this person to be:
A) A thoughtful administrator of his constituency's interests? B) A person who wants all the facts before giving an informed opinion on a topic, or C) A slanderous man with a reckless disregard for the truth, and for decency, and a man who "single handedly resurrected McCarthyism in Montana"!!!!?
Apparently, if you are the lawyer representing the developer, the answer is obviously C. The administrator in question is, of course, Gallatin county commissioner John Vincent, and the author of the radically over the top claims of Vincent's villainous black agenda, is attorney John Kauffman. John Vincent wants people to hear what he said, and judge for themselves as to the quality of his actions. That's obviously not good enough for Kauffman. Understand, I'm not blaming Kauffman; he's just pulling another trick out of the lawyer's handbook. If argumentation doesn't get you want you want, rely on intimidation and smear. You will notice, I hope, that Vincent has already said that if an apology is warranted once the full facts are known, he will respectfully give it. You will also notice, I hope, that no such acceptance of responsible action comes from Kauffman.
Normally, this kind of local political spat happens a lot, and travels well below most people's radar. It is not usually front page news, and yet this little tiff has rated the front page two days in a row. It's not a mystery as to why. John Vincent is running against the biggest kooky freak in the legislature next year, one Roger Koopman. That affords Kauffman a certain leverage; "do what I want or I will assassinate your political chances" he says while twirling his mustache. This is typical current political smear, aided and abetted by the Bozeman Chronicle. Kauffman's rant appears the day after the commission meeting, yet Vincent's direct quotes appear a day later. Such is the journalistic service that Gallatin county can expect, and I remind you that this incident affects all of Montana, not just Gallatin county.
This is exactly what happened to Rep. Dick Durbin; a complete mischaracterization of what was said, followed by an assumption of motivation that just doesn't hold water. One has to respect the Kauffman reptile for recognizing the tactical efficiency of such a smear, but one doesn't have to agree ... at all. From now on, I will refer to this tactic as "Durbinization". No doubts, it will work very well on those too lazy to actually get the facts of the matter. And I will happily follow up with the letters from the slugs who've bought the lie. Sincerely, I hope that I don't need to.
Uhhm, I highly doubt that one. I don't want to go too far in advancing stereotypes, here, but it really seems that women are often sexually attracted, with the resultant pleasure from it, to men who are the antithesis of the caring provider ... either of orgasms or children. Obviously, I could wrong about the whole damn thing. The only thing likely to advance these arguments at this point is to leave the behavior to the side for now, and study the biology itself.
So, what if we could watch a woman have an orgasm, and study the results? No, no no, I'm not talking about that really terrific "O" face (though that's awfully cool, too). I'm talking about watching what happens to the brain. It's often been said that, for women at least, that the mind is the most potent sex organ. Well that may just be right. A group of researchers in the Netherlands has done brain scans of men and women during orgasm, to study the brains response. Now you might think that a pretty boring deconstruction of a awfully important event, but I think what they've found is awfully ... hot.
It seems that women's brains do a shut down thing during orgasm. That just seems cool to me, total abandonment. Oh, they studied men, too. But it seems that we orgasm too quickly to be monitored (did I just hear a huge depressed sigh with a particularly female voice?) A real quick characterization of the findings is that women experience "oooo_ooo_OOO", and men experience "Oh yeah! I am a GOD!". Seriously, I don't really know what to draw from all of this, except that science has become fascinated with women's pleasure, and I'm all for that. Anyway, read the articles. They're good for you.
Don't misunderstand this as a blanket show of support for Rehberg, on my part. Realistically, all he did was mirror the obvious will of the Montana people as stated by the MT legislature's repudiation of the Patriot Act, and the 2004 voter initiative legalizing the use of medical marijuana. It doesn't take a savvy politician to clearly see the will of the constituents, here. Still, we live in a time where many in Washington (especially in the GOP) are more than happy to vote contrary to the people and in favor of special interests, or worse, to gain the favor of the White House. Denny deserves credit for recognizing, in these cases, that he doesn't work for the Justice Department, he works for Montana. Well done, Rehberg.
I like whimsical art as much as the next guy, but Bozeman's Sweet Pea festival has had some really *stupid* promotional posters over the years, all for the sake of "whimsy". Come on, a clownish cowboy stepping over a mountain range? Four large and garish sweet pea blossoms ... that don't even resemble sweet pea blossoms? Ofttimes, I think people use the word "whimsy" because they're afraid of the more appropriate word: Goofy.
So, for reasons that I'd best left undisclosed for now, reading this article leaves me with an urge to hurl.
First of all, Nike's swoosh is the quintessential
"Ÿberbrand," and lefties hate all brands (except their own hammer and sickle,
raised fist, and the socialist rose).
If you claim it, it must be true.
I know that I am being polled, and I know what I want the results to
indicate; therefore, I answer in the extreme to have an effect on the
outcome of the poll. I don't trust other people's answers and so
exaggerate my own. Is it so hard to imagine that the French think this
way too when being polled on their hatred for America and threats to
world peace? Are they so stupid that they cannot figure out that a
dramatic and interesting answer is "America"? I mean, granted, they're
not quite human, but legend has it that frogs can turn into humans, and
so there must be some common bond. The only people that Euro-hate
really matters to are the liberals in love with Europe. But hey,
lefties, hate is better than indifference, right?
If you assume guilt by association, it must be true.
No shit. Lefties hate soldiers. They don’t support the troops. They
wrap themselves up in a flag and document that Soldiers gave them some
228 years ago. I’m glad they can express their views and feelings on
whatever subject they desire. When I get home from Iraq, they can call
me a baby killer, throw shit at me, burn my flag, or protest at my
father’s (also a vet, buried in Punchbowl, HI) grave.
Make the conclusion, then find the evidence, and surely it must be true.
Generalize enough, and it must be true. Add a threat, and it must be double-plus true.
All this talk of liberals being tolerant makes me want to gag. They are
selectivily tolerant. This means that people that are gay should be
tolerated, but people that happen to think that homosexuality is not a
good lifestyle choice should be vilified more than say, Osama bin
Laden. Christians are the terrorists, you know.
Fear it enough, it must be true.
Democrats hate Freedom more than they love their own lives. They think that the only way the world will work better is to suborn their entire paycheck, family, society, and future to
BIG GOVERNMENT. Democrats think SOCIALISM is their right and that they feel entitled to force it on everyone else. Democrats are too stupid to realize that this just means that their
nirvana exists only in places like Cuba, China, the old Soviet Union, and Hitler's Germany.
If you claim it, it must be true.
I am amazed at the amount of anger on the part of the Left.
Thus ends today's lesson in willful blindness.
(By the way, Steve, Kerry has signed his SF-180. He just didn't sign the records over to you. Is that why you have that particularly pointless counter still up? One does wonder, without hate, that is, why you are not similarly calling for full disclosure of the records regarding the current Commander in Chief? And, as an aside, how many days have passed since GW promised to catch Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive?)