I just went over and read the diary of Nancy Drew. Oh, wait that was the rumor rag of Carol Minjares. Either way, she makes a good point, a point I can't ignore. The point that matters is this: I got screwed and I want my money.
About three some odd years ago, Matt Singer (*PTHEW*) took a trip to the East. He desired folks to sub for him on his website, and he promised us that we'd be 'well compensated' for our efforts because he was so 'well connected'. I was naive, fresh off the bus ... perhaps my shirt was too tight and my shorts were too short. It probably seemed like I was ripe for the picking. But I agreed to cover for Matt while he was wined and dined by Communist royalty. I worked my fingers until the tips bled and my Cheetos ran out. When Matt returned, I got a thank you, and a wink. But no call in the morning, and I received no money.
And now, so many years later, I find that Matt has been receiving huge bucks from George Soros! Matt is, according to at least one Special Olympian, laundering funds for Soros, and I haven't seen a dime. I feel so used! He promised me grassroots and all I got was concern for the communities of Montana. I don't live in the palatial estates like Singer. I can't singlehandedly arrange rock concerts for the people I own thrown by their friends (I mean really, Singer must own everybody that his politicians have friends who are Rock Stars.) I can't start and personally fund organizations three years before they get the big OutOfState bucks. And I can't personally circumvent and break rules that don't exist. That takes a special kind of guy. That takes Matt Singer.
But he still owes me, dammit. I want my Soro's bucks. Not one single left leaning blogger in this state writes without the promise of big moneys. This is astro-turfing,l dammit, and I'm due my share. Pay up, Singer. Pay up now!
(When I get my money, I'm going to buy pumpkin cards, and a blanket ... for when I wait out for the Great Pumpkin. I heard that he's a supporter of Forward Montana too, so I'm guaranteed some toys on Halloween night ... but they obviously won't be as big as Singer's ...)
I've done enough Scattergun posts (usually on a Friday) that its about time they had their own category.
To all those local Democratic folk out there who feel that opposition to Hillary Clinton requires the cheap shots, kindly remember that everything you throw in the gutter will be found by those alreadycrawling the sewers. Just thought you might need a reminder.
What gets the Montana right all fired up? Rule breakers. They support 'em. That is as long as it's only rules they don't like that get broked. Somebody prolly ought to remind 'em that ASUM ain't the government. It's student government, and they can pass whatever ridiculous rule they want. That's kinda what the 9th circuit said, as I read it. But if these proud defenders of "free speech" really do believe that money talks, (and should be able to buy elections) then I have 3 words for them: President Mitt Romney.
We missed our chance to party like it's Six Zero Uno One! Dammit, I better get an invite for Six Zero Uno Two.
via Kit, Winchester
makes me as hawhpy as a leettle gurll. *Nipple tweak* And while
you're at it, go congratulate the killer hunter person, Great White Huntress. (I know I
haven't, but I don't want to sully her rep with my lib cooties. Kit,
consider this a hearty WELL DONE!)
I interrupt the normally scheduled flypaper test in order to discuss something that should really matter to Americans.
By now, many of you know that my brother was illegally targeted by the city administrators of Dillon, Montana, leading to his arrest. I don't use the word "illegally" in any glib manner at all. What Malesich and Troedsson did was flat out illegal. I'm researching it on my own right now, but I do know that at least one of my sometimes-readers already has access to the info, and would serve himself, my brother and the community of Montana to email me with it as well. That way, I will risk or stake my own limited reputation as to the facts of the case and law. No one else need risk anything.
Allow me to get a tad personal here. I had warned my brother against the evils of small town politics. I knew his license was suspended, and strongly suspected that if anyone were to attack him, that would be the method. Make no mistake, I warned Moorcat of these concerns. Sure enough, small-town politics proved true to form. Petty little men performing petty little stunts to bolster their petty little egos. And aren't we all just goddamned proud to call such our 'civic leaders'? I haven't responded about this incident to my brother, or online, not because I don't care, but because I am just so disgusted at the predictable nature of the worst of humanity. I knew that my brother would "do the right thing", stand tall before the man, and accept his punishment. I've seen another brother do the same in the past. That, in large part, is why I love and respect them both. At no point do I call this justice, and that makes me physically ill.
There is a grander scale to this, though. No, I'm not trying to paint a picture of the little hero against the monolithic evil of authority. That's Moorcat's job, and damned if he doesn't have a pretty good palate to work with, a palate they gave him. The grander scale is that we should all feel revulsion, and yet we seemingly don't. This isn't just a matter of small-town politics and political bullying. It's a larger mindset, one that I have accepted and feel shamed by. Others should as well. A local chief executive manipulates his power to obtain information against an opponent, and shares that with a sniveling toady (even Grima Wormtongue was more palatable than the slobbering man-whore Troedsson). And he justifies his illegal actions as if it were concern for community. Is that the community you live in? Is that the community the Constitution told you that you live in? Is that the community you choose to live in?
No, no and no. This is the very crap that we went to war with England to get the fuck away from. This is the very crap that Hollywood makes hero movies about. That is what this is ... crap. We all know it. I'd offer a syllogism to prove it, but not everything can be boiled down to a syllogism, according to another person who won't say crap about this crap. No, this is precisely the crap that we agreed to prostitute ourselves, Republicant and Democant alike, when we chose the Daddy state after 9/11. This is precisely the crap we chose when we decided that turning a blind eye to the shrill was a good thing to do. Ignore the signs, pay no heed to the pained. We'll all be just fine if we pull the covers abit more over our heads.
Oh no, Wulfgar is overstating again? Am I? We're not talking about national security, or great and weighty matters of state. This time, people, we're talking about you. That's right, you. In Bozeman, I at least have the comfort that my mayor (though he and I have butted heads) understands the dangers of localized assholes using authority with dictatorial power. He's ag'in it, and I applaud that. In Missoula, their panties are in a knot over email. THE HORROR! And yet right here in this state, there is a city administration that will break the law to send a man to prison for disagreement. Again, ain't we all real proud? I'm not overstating jack-shit.
In a more simple, better, more conservative time, we'd have run Malesich and Troedsson out of the state with the tar boiling and the feathers plucked. I know, I know, it's easy to say that wouldn't really have happened, and your probably right if you do. BUT, what America, what Montana, do you live in? The one that says that it's okay to be the pawns of authority, or the one that tars and feathers them?
The answer is indicative of stature to me. Matt Singer knows the dangers of petty rule. Jay Stevens gets the point that authority cannot be given free hand to abuse and subjugate. And from the so-called Dextra wing in Montana, we have ... crickets. Make of that what you will; I know what I make of it. Conservatism isn't about struggling against authority anymore, it's about bowing to it. I still have my naive fantasies that we, Montanans, would chase corrupt politicians to the border. Apparently not.
What happened to my brother is a direct threat to the liberties of all who exist under the corrupt local juntas in this state. This should be on every blog, and in newspapers that aren't weekly. While he campaigns, someone should at least ask McGrath about this so he can blow the usual smoke of "I'm looking into it!". Maybe then, he will. As dysfunctional as my family is, we will deal with the immediacy of Moorcat's problems. But you folks have got a problem on your plate as well. Dick-taters in Montana? Yeah, that ought to matter.
Pull your head out of your ass, Budge. You call the Congress' resolutions "meaningless" and then crawl out from under your greasy counter to claim a non-binding resolution as the "downward slide". Woe! Woe is Budge. *Weep a tear*. You know that the Gateway Pundit is full of crap, here. Iraq is not one fucking thing like Morocco or Algiers. The government of Iraq doesn't work ... period. Biden wants some fix, and he may be right or wrong. But only a shit-heal such as yourself would blame the Democrats for screwing the international situation up.
You were told correct. GW is destabilizing the entire world opinion, but you want to blame Congress. Cool ... whatever. And now I'm going to watch as the Budglet excuses the administration and calls us all idiots ... you know ... those of us who actually called Iraq a clusterfuck before we ever invaded. Cause, ya' know, it's all about the now, and not about the "then" ... the then when it might have actually mattered! All hail the Budge, master of 20-20 hindsight, while blaming it forward.
Perhaps someone else has made this observation, but it occurs to me
that George Bush has completely undercut the Republican party's war on
government, a key pillar of their brand. You can't spin a story about
how the all powerful macho gov't, headed by commander codpiece, is
going to take care of everything and keep you safe while simultaneously
disparaging government in every other way. The narratives collide and
become incoherent. So, yes, attacks on "socialized medicine" or whatever just don't resonate like they used to.
He's wrong in that such narratives don't have to 'resonate'. They only have to confirm. There's been no lack of writing about comparative values recently. Steve, rather tritely, accepts the butt-ignorant thesis that 'liberals' dismiss truth for more important values (silly liberals). Dave suggests that liberal values are the core values of fascism, when compared to American ideals of Freedom and heart-tugging bumper-stickers. There's a rather common theme underlying it all. That the other (libruls, Democrats, hand-wringing socializing pussycats and anyone that thinks idiots actually exist beyond the dread left) are more extreme and dangerous than the Daddy state. That's a given of identity politics, going right back to the confirmed thesis of "you are either with us, or with the terrorists" (not us).
People question values all the time. They mull policy, to whatever degree they understand it. They studiously consider moral and personal impact of change (bidden and not). And they make decisions ... inside that box. And as the right is so very fond of saying "actions have consequences". Yes, they do, personal consequences if not public, and that's the meat of the dish. When one decides to support policy A, they don't mull Hobbesian repercussions (though many in the blog-o-world laughably might claim to.) It would be shallow to argue that people even weigh consequence against self-interest. People favor self-damaging policy all the fricking time (knowingly or unknowingly, though there's likely some pesky ego critter who will always assume that for you it's unknowing and themselves 'enlightened'.) No, no no. The line in the sand is drawn much closer to the naked skin. When we decide on such externalities it is invariably swayed by who that image makes us to ourselves.
I know many good folks who would argue that I just wrote "we decide based on who we are". Nope, I didn't. I wrote that we are what we decide, and subsequent decisions will either confirm or deny that. Exhibit A: there's a dude who writes, regarding the S-CHIP debate,
For the record, I’m against CHIP root and branch. That doesn’t mean
that I’m against helping those in need. I would endorse a system of
direct subsidies to those in need if it expanded competition and choice
Fair enough. As logically inconsistent as all get out, but fair, I guess. He is against policy that helps those in need, but he isn't against the value of helping those in need ... if it confirms his other ideals. The import is fairly clear. His claim focus is the gradation of differing values, but what is objectively at stake is what he desires to see as himself ... a guy who isn't against helping those in need, even though he quite clearly just wrote that he is. CHIP quite clearly helps those in need, but it doesn't confirm his identity by subscribing to his "values", hence he's against CHIP (and helping those in need). Kind of a paradox, isn't it?
A CHIP type program that favored this person's values would 'resonate' with him, I've no doubt. But at that point, it isn't about doing what should or needs to be done. It's about confirming the correctness of one's view of themselves.
Take a wider look. The vast majority of Americans favor the S-CHIP. No problem. But as the exampled individual points out, they favor the S-CHIP as long as it doesn't violate their sense of identity. It should only be used for the poor and needy ... as long as the word "needy" doesn't get threatening. As long as people feel that they're not being taken advantage of, they will espouse the virtues of caring for the children. Tsk. It's not about the children. It's about identity. We all want what's right. But more than that, we all want to see ourselves as wanting what's right ... even if we don't.
And that's why Atrios is wrong. A message can resonate, but will only cause action if it confirms identity. GW and the wacko-sphere don't need to send a resonant message. They only need to scare people about who they are.
A well known pundit attacks a 12-year old and his family, and all that need to be shown is that they might be gaming the system better than most. Yeah, MM and her gang of flying monkeys look like assholes, but ... Suddenly all these people who are *in favor* of helping the needy are concerned about the definition of "poor".
Another well known pundit calls Jews imperfect, and implies that they need to be converted to Christianity (no word on whether we need to kill their leaders first). And that's just okay, as long as it 1) annoys libruls, and 2) doesn't upset the love of Israel ... because we all love Israel, ya know, don't we?
Another well known pundit has a come-to-Jesus moment while dining at a Black restaurant and *holy shit* it's positively civilized! Some racists take offense, but we don't see color here, so lets sweep that under the rug for awhile.
There are those who argue that we must stay in Iraq or we will appear weak and questionable in our resolve. And we won't look like the Mistress Dominatrix that has so many Washington pundits a-quiver. Some of these folks seem to think that spending on a fool's errand is bad, but they support this crap anyway. To not do so would be ... weak? I haven't a clue. But it is obviously about their self-image, and has nothing to do with death and destruction and more of the same.
Hehehe. No. The right wing smear machinery will not damage brand Republican. Because Brand Republican has a lock on identity. Follow the Democrats and be uncertain and fearful. Follow the GOP and you are right about everything, even when you're wrong. Reagan established that, and he couldn't have damaged the country more. 9/11 gave legitimacy to the idea that our identities could be challenged, and we must be on guard against that very thing. With us (tiny little me) or against us (huge frightening you). No message need resonate from such a group who believe this. They have no need to trade in such. They have something better. They have fear. They can confirm who you are against what frightens you. Souls have been sold for such comfort.
Redskins wide receiver Brandon Lloyd somehow thinks it effective to dismiss the opinions of Troy Aikman (that's Hall-of-Famer Super Bowl MVP MR. Troy Aikman to you!) because he thinks that Aikman is gay. Hint to Brandon Lloyd: even if it's true, it has jack-all to do with football, his experience and knowledge of the game, or your inability to play it right now.
The best quote possible comes from Redskins SUPER-FAN, and Cowboy hater, Oliver Willis. In chiding Lloyd for his stupid comments, Oliver writes:
(Aikman) has bowel movements with more impressive stats than Brandon LLoyd.
So here we find ourselves (approximately) a third of the way through the NFL season and seriously ... WTF? Absolutely unbelievable shit has already happened. Carson Palmer throws for 6 touchdowns in a game ... and loses? The Patriots run for less than 70 yards in a game ... and win 48 to 27? What the hell is going on here? Some things expected are happening with no difficulties whatsoever. Others ... are just not so much. So, let's review the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
1) The Colts are just cruising. After watching all the punditry talk smack about the Super Bowl Champs weren't any better than last year (hello? Super Bowl win?) it's refreshing to see them all back off of the crap as regards the Colts. They are a good team ... a very good team.
2) The Jaguars running game. They have a fireplug running the ball for them. Jones-Drew is one of the scariest running backs I think I've ever seen. He's only like five foot something ... wide. This guy is going to impact the NFL for many years.
3) Adrian Peterson is your Rookie of the Year. Hang it up as a competition. This guy already staked his claim and he ain't backin' off. I predicted that the Vikes would win the NFC North. They still might ... unless ...
4) Brett Farooking Favre. Who put a quarter in this guy? When he decided to return I knew he would probably break John Elway's total win record. I knew he would probably break many of The Whiner's records as well. But hell! This guy isn't just breaking records (that he knows will be broken by Manning, anyway). He's winning games like a pup. I realize that it's only a third of the season, but anybody who counts Green Bay out ... shake your head in shame. Favre came back to play, and play he will.
5) The Dallas Cowboys. I know, I know. The Hatetriots whupped on Dallas last night. But this is a really good team. It reminds me of the Pittsburgh squad that went through AFC ranked numbers 3, 1 and 2 to make and win the Super Bowl. They're having fun ... a shitload of fun. Don't count these Cowboys out.
6) The Cleveland Browns. Apparently, no one told them that they weren't that good.
1) The Chicago Bears defense. They are legendary for being the best ... except they ain't. I thought Chicago would fall ... and I was right.
2) Norv Turner. He didn't have to do anything with the Chargers. NOTHING! And yet they lost and lost, and looked pathetic while doing so. That's coaching people. I told you he'd suck. Believe me.
3) Quarterback controversy. An old guy came into the game after one series and led the Panthers to victory. Of course, that old guy was Vinnie Testeverde, Heisman trophy winner a bajillian years ago. I couldn't be happier for Vinnie, but really, WTF? Pick a quarterback and stick. San Fran, Arizona, Carolina, Oakland ... give us a freakin' break. The quarterback ain't the team. Pick one.
4) The New Orleans Saints. Maybe they'll get it together; I don't know. But that team has just looked bad.
5) The Seattle Seahawks. I've just never been a big fan of Holmgren, and this season is showing why. They're going to win the NFC west, but only because everybody else totally sucks! That is unless, and that's a big if hanging out there, the 49'ers can pull there shit together. Then, the Seahawks will just suck.
First and foremost, the Denver Broncos. I posted that they had no pressure attack on QBs, and no run defense. The worst home loss in 41 years kinda proved that I was right. They aren't pulling things together. Travis Henry may be out for a year. Tom Nalen is out for the year. Simean Rice is ... pathetic. Dry Bly is succeptable. Sam Adams is very good at what he does, when he can do it. But you don't play a 350# fat ass on every play. It doesn't matter whether your offense is in sinc or not, if your defense just can't stop shit. The Broncos will be lucky to go 6 and 10.
2) The Hatriots. Filming the opposition from the sidelines? When you're that good? Give me a break! This is the best team that money can buy. You have to hate them on principle, just because they felt the need to cheat .., for no reason. They might indeed go undefeated through the season ... and that will only make people hate them more. I offer a giant middle finger to the team from Boston!
3) The Redskins. That much talent and that much losing. They're really pathetic. Really.
4) Sports reporters as regards Donovan McNabb. I don't want to say y'all are racists or nothing but holy shit, can you guys be more negative? I doubt it ... seriously, I doubt it.
5) Larry Johnson's holdout. Chief's fans everywhere should want his scalp on a platter. The Chiefs could be 5 and 1 ...